14 Cited authorities

  1. Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.

    501 U.S. 32 (1991)   Cited 9,258 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts "may bar from the courtroom a criminal defendant who disrupts a trial" may "assess attorney fees when a party has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons," and "may act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute"
  2. In re Keegan Management, Securities Litigation

    78 F.3d 431 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 522 times
    Holding § 1927 sanctions "must be supported by a finding of subjective bad faith"
  3. Unigard Security Insurance v. Lakewood Engineering & Manufacturing Corp.

    982 F.2d 363 (9th Cir. 1992)   Cited 345 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district courts have the inherent authority to exclude evidence as a sanction
  4. Shafii v. British Airways

    83 F.3d 566 (2d Cir. 1996)   Cited 204 times
    Holding that a state-law claim is preempted and removable from state court if resolution of the claim "depends on an interpretation of the collective-bargaining agreement"
  5. Zambrano v. City of Tustin

    885 F.2d 1473 (9th Cir. 1989)   Cited 220 times
    Holding that "[a]dmission to the state bar is the essential determinant of professional ethics and legal competence"
  6. United States v. Blodgett

    709 F.2d 608 (9th Cir. 1983)   Cited 124 times
    Holding that sanctions under § 1927 are available when an attorney recklessly or in bad faith multiplies the proceedings
  7. Sauer v. Superior Court

    195 Cal.App.3d 213 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 75 times
    Imputing attorney's wrongful withholding of material to client with respect to discovery sanctions
  8. Avent v. Solfaro

    223 F.R.D. 184 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)   Cited 8 times
    Denying motion where plaintiff "filed his Rule 11 motion in conjunction with a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927
  9. Keithley v. Homestore.com, Inc.

    No. C 03-4447 SI (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2009)

    No. C 03-4447 SI. March 13, 2009 ORDER SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge On March 4, 2009, the Court entered judgment in this case based on the Court's earlier order granting summary judgment to defendants on plaintiffs' patent infringement claims, and the Court's dismissal without prejudice of defendants' counterclaims. The parties have contacted the Court's clerk inquiring about the entry of judgment in light of the sanctions matters pending before Judge Laporte. The Court considers those matters to

  10. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 95,990 times   660 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
  11. Rule 4 - Summons

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 4   Cited 69,790 times   123 Legal Analyses
    Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time
  12. Rule 37 - Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 37   Cited 46,316 times   322 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party may be barred from using a witness if it fails to disclose the witness
  13. Section 1927 - Counsel's liability for excessive costs

    28 U.S.C. § 1927   Cited 8,865 times   81 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts the power to charge "excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred" due to "unreasonabl[e] and vexatious" conduct
  14. Rule 53 - Masters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 53   Cited 2,666 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Giving court-appointed masters the power to "regulate all proceedings" before them