Estate of Price v. Nevada Resort Ass'n

Full title: ESTATE OF Kathleen Jo PRICE, deceased; Janine Adamick; Joseph Adamick…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Nov 21, 1990

919 F.2d 144 (9th Cir. 1990)

Opinion

919 F.2d 144 (9th Cir. 1990) ESTATE OF Kathleen Jo PRICE, deceased; Janine Adamick; Joseph Adamick, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NEVADA RESORT ASSOCIATION; Trustees of Nevada Resort Association Health and Welfare Trust; Elias Ghanem; Bally's formerly known as MGM, Inc. and MGM Grand Hotels, Inc.; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; Thomas Byer; MGM Grand Hotels and Certain Subsidiaries; Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance Company; Las Vegas Medical Center, Defendants-Appellees. Nos. 87-2575, 89-16462. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit November 21, 1990

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Argued and Submitted Nov. 7, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada; Howard D. McKibben, District Judge, Presiding Philip M. Pro, District Judge, Presiding.

D.Nev.

AFFIRMED.

Before JAMES R. BROWNING, PREGERSON and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^*

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3.

Janice Hayes, attorney for the estate of Kathleen Jo Price, appeals the district court's orders (1) imposing Rule 11 sanctions against her in the amount of $3,000, (2) denying her motions for sanctions against Elias Ghanem, Thomas Byer, and the Las Vegas Medical Center (collectively the Medical Defendants), and (3) releasing the bond Hayes posted to obtain a stay pending her appeal of the order imposing sanctions against her. We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions against Janice Hayes based on her numerous filings of frivolous papers. See Cooter & Gell v. Hartmax Corp., 110 S.Ct. 2447, 2461 (1990). The court also acted within its discretion in refusing to award sanctions against the Medical Defendants. Hayes has not pointed to any conduct of the Medical Defendants that would justify the imposition of sanctions against them. Finally, the court did not err in releasing the bond given by Hayes pending her appeal (no. 87-2575) of the order imposing sanctions against her because on April 20, 1989, a panel of this court dismissed the appeal.

AFFIRMED.