Matter of Yagman

10 Citing briefs

  1. Art of Living Foundation v. Does 1-10

    MOTION to Dismiss of Doe/Klim and Doe/Skywalker

    Filed January 31, 2011

    Because the doctors had stated "the basis for drawing that opinion ... [i]t was strikingly clear ... that the doctors were interpreting findings and presenting their individual opinions." 796 F.2d at 1174. The court specifically rejected the argument that an opinion cannot be protected where it involves accusations of criminal conduct.

  2. Cortina v. Wal-Mart, Inc.

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION for Sanctions against Plaintiff's Attorneys

    Filed November 30, 2015

    See Mirch v. Frank, 266 Fed. Appx. 586, 588 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Reasonableness is the benchmark for sanctions based on attorneys’ fees,” and is “determined by following a two-part ‘lodestar’ approach.” (citing Yagman, 796 F.2d at 1184-85; 28 U.S.C. § 1927 (authorizing fees “reasonably incurred”); Intel Corp. v. Terabyte Int’l, 6 F.3d 614, 622 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted))); see also Jordan v. Multnomah County, 815 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1987) (“The fee applicant has the burden of producing satisfactory evidence, in addition to the affidavits of its counsel, that the requested rates are in line with those prevailing in the community . . . .” (emphasis added)); Kilopass Tech., Inc. v. Sidense Corp., 82 F. Supp. 3d 1154, 1169 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (“The party seeking fees bears the initial burden of establishing the hours expended litigation the case and must provide detailed time records documenting the tasks completed and the amount of time spent.” (citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983); Welch v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942, 945-46 (9th Cir. 2007))); c.f. Sanchez v. Bank of Am., 2010 WL 2382347, at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. June 10, 2010) (noting defendant “has not provided the Court with actu

  3. Peter Chen v. St. Jude Medical, Inc. et al

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case for Improper Venue or Stay Pending State Action, and Request for Fees and Costs

    Filed April 19, 2017

    To the extent Plaintiff responds that this conduct was not vexatious “enough” and that further filings and harassment are necessary to justify sanctions, the Ninth Circuit has cautioned against “tolerating abuses during the course of an action and then punishing the offender after the trial is at an end.” Matter of Yagman, 796 F.2d 1165, 1183 (9th Cir. 1986). When sanctionable conduct is “immediately recognizable[,]” it “should be brought to the attention of the offending attorney” because it better serves the “primary purpose of sanctions, which is to deter subsequent abuses” and prevents the needless accumulation of attorneys’ fees, which leads to unusually large sanctions amounts.

  4. Oracle America, Inc. et al v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company

    MOTION to Strike 87 Amended Answer to Complaint HPE's Affirmative Defense Nos. 2-10 [Redacted Version]

    Filed October 18, 2016

    In the alternative, if the Court allows HP to pursue this defense on the basis of these false allegations, the Court should do so with notice to HP that Oracle will be permitted to seek sanctions when the defense is proven false. See Advisory Comm. Note to Rule 11, reprinted in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 97 F.R.D. 165, 200-01 (1983) (stating that pleadings sanctions may be determined at the end of litigation); Matter of Yagman, 796 F.2d 1165, 1183-84 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that “in situations where a complaint or other paper is obviously and recognizably frivolous when filed, or as circumstances lead the court to strongly suspect that a filed paper may not be well-grounded in fact or law, the court should at a minimum provide notice to the certifying attorney that Rule 11 sanctions will be assessed at the end of trial if appropriate”). C. HP’s Unclean Hands Defense Fails (Defense No. 10) The Ninth Circuit applies the unclean hands defense very narrowly in the context of copyright infringement.

  5. Joshua Claypole et al. v. County of San Mateo et al

    MOTION for Sanctions and to Compel Discovery

    Filed November 10, 2015

    The Ninth Circuit has described “the primary purpose of sanctions” as “to deter subsequent abuses” and emphasized that “[a] proper sanction assessed at the time of a transgression will ordinarily have some measure of deterrent effect on subsequent abuses.” Matter of Yagman, 796 F.2d 1165, 1183 (9th Cir. 1986). Plaintiffs previously requested the imposition of sanctions in response to Mr. Bertling’s many improper instructions not to answer during the course of Dr. Fithian’s first 30(b)(6) deposition, but the Court declined to grant them at that time.

  6. Boarding School Review, LLC v. Delta Career Education Corporation et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 23 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 22 Order on Motion to Dismiss,,,,,,,,,. MOTION for Reconsideration re; 22 Order on Motion to Dismiss,,,,,,,,,.. Document

    Filed April 22, 2013

    The purpose of the rule is to ensure the finality of decisions and to prevent the practice of a losing party examining a decision and then plugging the gaps of a lost motion with additional matters. Case 1:11-cv-08921-DAB Document 26 Filed 04/22/13 Page 12 of 20 7 In support of their motion for reargument, Sirota and Block contend that the court failed to consider the clear and convincing standard of proof required by Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) in ruling on their summary judgment motion, and that Matter of Yagman, 796 F.2d 1165 (9th Cir.1986) requires that California law be applied to the privilege issue. . . Defendants did not, however, cite Matter of Yagman in their prior memoranda, and although defendants cited Anderson v. Liberty Lobby for general principles of summary judgment, they did not contend that Anderson required application of the clear and convincing standard of proof on Carolco's libel claim. Id.

  7. Aguilar et al v. PNC Bank, N.A.

    MOTION for Sanctions Defendant's Motion for Sanctions

    Filed September 11, 2015

    Preventing such abuse depends in part on reducing the reluctance of attorneys to seek sanctions and of judges to impose them. See Matter of Yagman, 796 F.2d 1165, 1182 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, advisory committee notes (1983 amendments). The purpose of sanctions is to “penalize those whose conduct may be deemed to warrant” them and “deter those who might be tempted to such conduct in the absence of such a deterrent.”

  8. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Commodities Online, LLC et al

    RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re Order on Motion to Stay

    Filed September 9, 2011

    Reasonableness of investigation under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) must be assessed in light of the circumstance of the case. See In re Yagman, 796 F.2d 1165, 1182 (9 th Cir. 1986). 5.

  9. Strojnik v. Costar Realty Information, Inc. et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses

    Filed January 12, 2009

    We have twice expressly held that § 1927 cannot be applied to an initial pleading. See Zaldivar [Zaldivar v. Los Angeles, 780 F.2d 823, 829 (9th Cir. 1986)] 780 F.2d at 831 (under § 1927, "the multiplication of proceedings is punished, thus placing initial pleadings beyond" the section's reach) (emphasis in original); Matter of Yagman, 796 F.2d 1165, 1187 (9th Cir.) ("Section 1927 does not apply to initial pleadings, since it addresses only the multiplication of proceedings. It is only possible to multiply or prolong proceedings after the complaint is filed.")

  10. Hudson v. International Computer Negotiations, Inc.

    MEMORANDUM in opposition re Motion for attorney fees

    Filed June 27, 2006

    Discrete acts of vexatious conduct should be identified and a Case 6:04-cv-00892-GAP-UAM Document 117 Filed 06/27/06 Page 7 of 17 -8- determination made whether they were done in bad faith or, even if bad faith was not present, whether they multiplied the proceedings.” In re Ruben, 825 F.2d 977, 990 (6th Cir. 1987); see also In re Yagman, 796 F.2d 1165, 1182 (9th Cir. 1986) (“In contexts other than Rule 11, the sanctionable misconduct will, in general, be more immediately recognizable. Consequently, if the purposes of the rules are to be served, the sanctionable behavior should be brought to the immediate attention of the offending attorney.