Washburn

Washburn v. Morgado

Good Law
332 F. App'x 380
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 26, 2009No. 05-17069California1,089 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

The City and County of San Francisco (collectively the “City”) appeal the district court’s imposition of nominal sanctions against the City and two deputy city attorneys for a violation of the court’s standing orders. Additionally, Ben Rosenfeld (“Ro-senfeld”), the attorney for James Henry Washburn, attempts to join the City’s appeal and seeks reversal of the district court’s identical monetary sanction upon him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to review the City’s claim, and we affirm the district court’s sanctions order as it pertains to the City and the deputy city attorneys. However, we lack jurisdiction to adjudicate Rosenfeld’s claim because he failed to timely file his cross-appeal, and we therefore dismiss it.

We may review sanctions imposed by the district court once a final decision is entered in the case below. Cunningham v. Hamilton County, 527 U.S. 198, 200 , 119 S.Ct. 1915 , 144 L.Ed.2d 184 (1999). If one party timely files an appeal, another party has fourteen days to file notice of an additional appeal. Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(3). Here, Rosenfeld needed to file notice of his intent to join the City’s appeal within four *382 teen days, which…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.