In re: Westwood Plaza North, et al v. Theodor Bodnar, et al
| In the Matter of: WESTWOOD PLAZA NORTH |
| SHMUEL ERDE |
| THEODOR NICKOLAS BODNAR, MARY LOUISA BODNAR, TERRENCE W. COONEY, JAMES WALDORF and JOHN BRINK |
| 17-55655 |
| May 5, 2017 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Description |
|---|
 Westwood Plaza North v. Bodnar
|
|
WESTWOOD PLAZA NORTH V. THEODOR BODNAR
|
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
9029982225
Filed order and amended opinion (KIM MCLANE WARDLAW, RONALD M. GOULD and PAUL J. WATFORD)The per curiam opinion filed on April 9, 2018 is amended as follows: At slip op. page 6, lines 14 21, delete See 28 U.S.C. 1927 (sanctions for filings which unreasonably and vexatiously multiply the proceedings); Wages v. I.R.S., 915 F.2d 1230, 1235 36 (9th Cir. 1990) (sanctions under 28 U.S.C. 1927 may be imposed on pro se litigant for bad faith filings); Barnd v. City of Tacoma, 664 F.2d 1339, 1343 (9th Cir. 1982) (finding of bad faith or intentional misconduct by counsel required for award of sanctions under 28 U.S.C. 1927). An amended opinion is filed concurrently with this order. [10856456]
|
|
Filing
9029918499
Filed per curiam opinion (KIM MCLANE WARDLAW, RONALD M. GOULD and PAUL J. WATFORD) Appellees filed the motion for sanctions on October 26, 2017, within the time prescribed by Ninth Circuit Rule 39-1.6. See 9th Cir. R. 39-1.6(a). Having concluded that the motion for sanctions is timely, we now turn to the merits of the motion. We have considered the motion and appellant s opposition thereto, and grant in part the motion for sanctions. Appellant s motion to strike the motion for sanctions is denied. We refer the determination of an appropriate award of attorney s fees as damages under Rule 38 to this court s Appellate Commissioner, who shall conduct whatever proceedings he deems appropriate, and who shall have authority to enter an order awarding fees. See 9th Cir. R. 39.1.6. The Appellate Commissioner s order is subject to reconsideration. Id. Appellees did not file a timely bill of costs in this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 39(d); 9th Cir. R. 39-1.1. Accordingly, we deny in part the motion for sanctions under Rule 38 with respect to appellees request for double costs for this appeal. [SEE OPINION FOR FULL TEXT]; GRANTED IN PART; DENIED IN PART. [10828454]
|
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
