CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendants Charles Johnson and Franklin Resources, Inc. respectfully request that this Court: (i) declare that Plaintiff’s counsel at Liddle & Robinson, L.L.C., to be in violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 USC § 1927; (ii) strike the allegations in the Amended Complaint in their entirety; and (ii) award Defendants monetary sanctions in the amount of the reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs they have incurred in defending against Plaintiff’s allegations to be determined by the Court. In the event the Court grants this motion, Defendants will submit a separate request for fees associated with briefing this motion pursuant to Local Rule 54-5(b). DATED: May 14, 2015 COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP By: /s/ Joseph W. Cotchett JOSEPH W. COTCHETT JOSEPH W. COTCHETT (SBN 36324) jcotchett@cpmlegal.com NANCI E. NISHIMURA (SBN 152621) nnishimura@cpmlegal.com MARK C. MOLUMPHY (SBN 168009) mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com KEVIN P. O’BRIEN (SBN 215148) kobrien@cpmlegal.com COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 Attorneys for Defendants Charles B. Johnson and

mail: garrett.garfield@hklaw.com 111 S.W. Fifth Avenue 2300 U.S. Bancorp Tower Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: 503.243.2300 Fax: 503.241.8014 Attorneys for Defendant eBay Inc. Case 3:16-cv-01709-AC Document 8 Filed 10/19/16 Page 14 of 15 Page 15 - DEFENDANT EBAY INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS ON RES JUDICATA GROUNDS AND FOR IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1927; REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE; ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 111 S.W. Fifth Avenue 2300 U.S. Bancorp Tower Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: 503.243.2300 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I caused the foregoing DEFENDANT EBAY INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS ON RES JUDICATA GROUNDS AND FOR IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1927; REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE; ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM to be served on the following person: Tyrone Blocker P.O. Box 9134 Portland, OR 97207 by the following indicated method or methods:  by CM/ECF electronically mailed notice from the Court on the date set forth below.  by mailing full, true and correct copies thereof in sealed, first class postage prepaid envelopes, addressed to the parties and/or their attorneys as shown above, to the last- known office addresses of the parties and/or attorneys, and deposited with the United States Postal Service at Portland, Oregon, on the date set forth below. 

Inducol, LDA. v. Ford Motor Co., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11198, *6-7 (E.D.N.Y. July 2, 1992) (Hurley, J.) (awarding attorneys' fees). Accordingly, the "bad faith" requirement for Section 1927 and the Court's inherent powers, and the "improper purpose" provision of Rule 11(b)(1), are satisfied. 6. Plaintiff Has Asserted False Statements of Fact.

The Court should therefore deny Defendants’ motion for sanctions. Dated: May 15, 2014 LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS R. DOLLINGER By: /S/ Douglas R. Dollinger (pro hac vice) NY Bar No. 2354926 Law Offices of Douglas Dollinger 50 Main Street Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: 845-915-6800 Facsimile: 845-915-6801 E-mail: ddollingeresq@gmail.com Attorney for Plaintiffs Case3:13-cv-04280-VC Document109 Filed05/15/14 Page8 of 9 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 9 Plaintiffs’ Response To Defendants’ Motion For Sanctions Under 28 U.S.C § 1927 And The Court’s Inherent Powers CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on May 15, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court by using the ECF system for filing and served the Counsel appearing for all parties to these proceedings. /S/____________________________ Douglas R. Dollinger, Esq.

By discussing the proceedings of other cases, instead of setting forth the necessary showings regarding this case, Defendant has not met this burden. Because Defendant has not demonstrated that Plaintiff conduct has been unreasonable and vexatious, he is not entitled to attorney’s fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. CONCLUSION Attorney Sweet’s and Booth’s latest attempts to obtain a windfall for meritless reasons should be rejected just as their previous attempts have been.

’S MOT. FOR SANCTIONS NO. 3:08-CV-3518 MMC 19 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 Sanctions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927, based on Plaintiffs’ counsels’ violations of the rules and this Court’s orders, and their vexatious and improper conduct. The Court should also consider sua sponte issuing an order to show cause why Plaintiffs’ counsel should not be sanctioned under Rule 11(c)(3).

Id. … FN2. A District Court may impose § 1927 sanctions on a sua sponte basis. See Hashemi v. Campaigner Publ’ns, Inc., 784 F.2d 1581, 1584 (11th Cir. 1986).

This motion resulted in a colossal waste of time and resources of the parties and the Court. Using the “serious public health and safety risk” argument was nothing less than an inexcusable scare tactic. Therefore, Plaintiff Ideal respectfully requests that this Honorable Court issue an Order: 19 Case 3:05-cv-03079-MWB Document 165 Filed 04/20/07 Page 22 of 24 (A) Adjudging that the filing of the motion for preliminary injunction violated the provisions of F. R. Civ. P. 11; (B) Adjudging that the filing of the motion for preliminary injunction violated the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1927; (C) Adjudging that the motion for preliminary injunction was filed in bad faith, with fraudulent intent, vexatiously, wantonly, and/or for oppressive reasons; (D) Requiring that Rivard and/or its attorneys pay Plaintiff Ideal the costs and attorneys fees incurred by it as a result of the filing motion for preliminary injunction, pursuant to F. R. Civ. P. 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and/or this Court’s inherent authority; (E) Requiring that Plaintiff Ideal file its attorney fees and costs incurred in connection with Rivard's motion and claims within 30 days after entry of the Court's order granting this motion, and further requiring that Rivard shall file any objections to the attorney fees and costs sought by Plaintiff Ideal within 14 days after filing; and (F) Providing such other or further relief as the Court may deem just and appropriate under the circumstances. Respectfully submitted, Attorneys for Plaintiff Ideal Instruments, Inc.

Similarly, sanctions under Section 1927 that may be imposed personally on an attorney may include "the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred because of such [sanctionable] conduct." 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Such sanctions may include the costs arising from the 6 sanctions proceedings themselves to further the "goal of deterring future similar sanctionable 7 conduct" and remedying the harm caused in terms of time, effort and money a party must expend to 8 pursue sanctions.

As stated above, Plaintiff’s Counsel can offer no justification for bringing this nearly- identical suit against nearly-identical defendants in a nearly-identical venue—one which it knew to be wrong—in such a reckless manor. By recklessly filing such a knowingly frivolous Complaint, Plaintiff’s Counsel “so multiplied the proceedings in [an] unreasonabl[e] and vexatious[]” way as to expose it to sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. D. Sanctions Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 1.