Opinion
No. 19-16202
08-12-2020
EUROSESMILLAS, S.A., Plaintiff-counter-defendant, v. MOHAN UTTARWAR; PIYUSH GUPTA, Third-party-defendants-Appellants, v. PLC DIAGNOSTICS, INC.; et al., Defendants-third-party-plaintiffs-cross-claimants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 3:17-cv-03159-TSH MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Thomas S. Hixson, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Submitted August 10, 2020 San Francisco, California Before: CHRISTEN and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and BATAILLON, District Judge.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska, sitting by designation. --------
Mohan Uttarwar and Piyush Gupta appeal from the district court's denial of their motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court's decision regarding Rule 11 sanctions. Holgate v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671, 675 (9th Cir. 2005). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We affirm.
An attorney may be subject to Rule 11 sanctions if he or she files a pleading that is frivolous or presented for an improper purpose. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1)-(2); Holgate, 425 F.3d at 675-76. Here, the district court concluded that sanctions were unwarranted because the Third Party Complaint was not frivolous or brought for an improper purpose. This decision was within the district court's broad discretion in such matters. See Holgate, 425 F.3d at 675; see also Operating Eng'rs Pension Tr. v. A-C Co., 859 F.2d 1336, 1344 (9th Cir. 1988) (noting that Rule 11 sanctions are generally reserved for "rare and exceptional" cases).
AFFIRMED.