From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Laborers' Int'l Union of N. Am. Local Union No. 783 v. Holland & Hart, LLP

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Mar 21, 2018
No. 17-15209 (9th Cir. Mar. 21, 2018)

Opinion

No. 17-15209

03-21-2018

LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA LOCAL UNION NO. 783; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. HOLLAND & HART, LLP, Counsel for Defendants; et al., Appellants, v. MAMMOTH PACIFIC, LP, a California Limited Partnership; et al., Defendants.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01612-MCE-KJN MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 16, 2018 San Francisco, California Before: PAEZ and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and ADELMAN, 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 Lynn S. Adelman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, sitting by designation. --------

Mammoth Pacific LP and Holland & Hart LLP appeal the district court's decision imposing sanctions in the amount of $1,500. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

To the extent the district court based its decision to sanction defendants on the grounds that their filings were frivolous and violated the court's warning not to use footnotes to avoid page limits, the district court did not abuse its discretion. See Zambrano v. City of Tustin, 885 F.2d 1473, 1477, 1484 (9th Cir. 1989). But to the extent the district court based its decision on the ground that the defendants' filings exceeded the page limits set by the Pretrial Scheduling Order, it was clearly erroneous. The court failed to recognize that it had set different page limits in its subsequent October 4, 2016 order (30 pages for dispositive motions and responses, 15 for replies), which were not violated by the defendants' 29-page summary judgment motion, and 30-page response. (The 19-page reply brief did exceed the page limit set by the October 4th order.) Because the district court clearly erred in disregarding its October 4th order, we vacate and remand for a determination of whether sanctions are appropriate in light of the correct page limits. Each party will bear its own costs on appeal.

VACATED AND REMANDED.


Summaries of

Laborers' Int'l Union of N. Am. Local Union No. 783 v. Holland & Hart, LLP

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Mar 21, 2018
No. 17-15209 (9th Cir. Mar. 21, 2018)
Case details for

Laborers' Int'l Union of N. Am. Local Union No. 783 v. Holland & Hart, LLP

Case Details

Full title:LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA LOCAL UNION NO. 783; et…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Mar 21, 2018

Citations

No. 17-15209 (9th Cir. Mar. 21, 2018)