Gomez v. Vernon

12 Citing briefs

  1. Ritchie v. Sempra Energy

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Hulett Harper Stewart LLP

    Filed July 29, 2014

    The Hartpence decision also relies on Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F. 3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2001)—a case that involved the “remarkable circumstance” of wrongdoing by the attorneys involved, who “secretly acquir[ed]” prison inmates’ legal correspondence, and which relied on ABA Formal Opinions 92-368 and 94- 382—opinions later withdrawn and repudiated by ABA Formal Opinion 06-440. See Hartpence, 2013 WL 2278122 at *2; Gomez, 255 F.3d at 1131. Hartpence also involved a complaint filed under seal in a qui tam case on behalf of the government—a factually distinguishable situation in which, as the Court noted, counsel have heightened duties of care and candor.

  2. Valle del Sol v. Kobach

    MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT of 1 MOTION to Compel

    Filed May 27, 2014

    Here, even assuming arguendo that the attorney-client privilege once applied to the subpoenaed records, that privilege has been destroyed at least as to the communications regarding S.B. 1070 and other topics by virtue of Sen. Pearce’s voluntary disclosure of allegedly privileged communications on the same subject. See Gomez, 255 F.3d at 1131; Qwest, 450 F.3d at 1185. Here, Sen. Pearce—the holder of the alleged privilege—has already voluntarily disclosed numerous emails between himself and Mr. Kobach about S.B. 1070 precursor legislation and the drafting, intent, and passage of S.B. 1070 itself.

  3. (PC) Mitchell, et al. v. Felker et al

    OPPOSITION

    Filed July 1, 2013

    Under the PLRA, any injunction against prison officials must be “narrowly drawn” and extend “no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d at 1129. The PLRA provides, in relevant part: Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs.

  4. Ashker et al v. Brown et al

    REPLY

    Filed December 27, 2012

    These injuries constitute irreparable harm, for Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. Gomez, 255 F.3d at 1129-30 (affirming District Court issuance of injunction prohibiting retaliation against certain inmates where “continued retaliation for inmates exercise of their constitutional rights is a real threat” constituting irreparable injury). If this Court finds that Ashker’s transfer was retaliatory, then Plaintiffs meet the other elements for injunctive relief.

  5. Cortina v. Wal-Mart, Inc.

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

    Filed November 30, 2015

    C. Lang Shows No Bad Faith, Harassment, or Multiplied Proceedings “[O]nly conduct rising to the level of maliciousness, vexatiousness or bad faith warrants section 1927 sanctions; negligence—even gross negligence—is not enough.” Blumberg v. Gates, 152 Fed. Appx. 652, 654 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2001)). Moreover, a party is entitled to § 1927 sanctions “only if [the opposing party’s attorney] ‘multiplied’ the proceedings.”

  6. SmartData, S.A. v. Amazon.Com, Inc.

    RESPONSE

    Filed October 23, 2015

    A court can award § 1927 sanctions only upon a finding of bad faith, which is present when an attorney acts with knowing recklessness or argues a meritorious claim for the purpose of harassing the opposition. B.K.B. v. Maui Police Dep't, 276 F.3d 1091, 1107 (9th Cir.2002); Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1134 (9th Cir.2001). “The key term in [§1927] is ‘vexatiously’; carelessly, negligently, or unreasonably multiplying the proceedings is not enough.”

  7. Blue Spike, LLC v. Adobe Systems, Inc.

    MOTION for Attorney Fees

    Filed June 16, 2015

    In the Ninth Circuit, “sanctions are available when recklessness is ‘combined with an additional factor such as frivolousness, harassment, or an improper purpose.’” Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1134 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal citation omitted). As the Court noted in its May 4, 2015 Order, fees may also be awarded under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 as a condition of dismissal.

  8. Ashker et al v. Brown et al

    MOTION for Preliminary Injunction ; Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction

    Filed December 6, 2012

    IV. THIS COURT HAS INHERENT POWER TO IMPOSE RESTRAINTS ON DEFENDANTS’ INTENTIONAL EFFORTS TO HINDER AND OBSTRUCT THIS LITIGATION This Court’s inherent power to sanction or restrain litigants for improper conduct in the course of litigation “extends to a full range of litigation abuses.” Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1134 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 46-47 (1991) on of sanctions or other restraints “when a party acts for an improper purpose” or engages in “harassment” during the course of litigation with the intent to interfere with the other party’s ability to litigate the case. Id. at 1134; Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir. 2001).

  9. In re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records Litigation

    Reply to Opposition 67 Reply in Support of United States' Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal

    Filed February 1, 2007

    See Hepting, 439 F. Supp. 2d at 1011 (emphasis added).5 Case3:06-md-01791-VRW Document147 Filed02/01/07 Page12 of 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 The authority on which Plaintiffs rely to argue that the violation of a statute or constitutional right establishes irreparable harm concerned actions that are known and violations that have been established. See, e.g., Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F. 3d 1118, 1129 (9th Cir.) (affirming injunctive where the record after a nineteen day trial demonstrated prison inmates had been subject to unconstitutional retaliation), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1066 (2001); Silver Sage Partners Ltd. v. City of Desert Hot Springs, 251 F.3d 814, 827 (9th Cir. 2001) (where jury found violation of Fair Housing Act, irreparable harm established for a permanent injunction); Smallwood v. National Can Company, 583 F.2d 419, 420 (9th Cir. 1978) (permanent injunction issued in retaliation claim where district court found retaliatory intent).

  10. Morales v. Beard, et al

    MOTION to Compel Discovery

    Filed April 17, 2006

    The attorney-client privilege protects communications between client and attorney for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, where such communications were intended to be confidential. Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1131 (9th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff’s discovery requests do not inquire into privileged communications of Defendants and their attorneys, but rather seeks factual information related to Plaintiff’s constitutional claims.