Javier Plata v. Darbun Enterprises, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FEB 15 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS JAVIER TENORIO PLATA; et al., No. 10-56367 Plaintiffs - Appellants, D.C. No. 3:09-cv-00044-IEG-CAB and MEMORANDUM* PHILIP H. STILLMAN, Appellant, v. DARBUN ENTERPRISES, INC.; et al., Defendants - Appellees. JAVIER TENORIO PLATA; et al., No. 10-56437 Plaintiffs - Appellees, D.C. No. 3:09-cv-00044-IEG-CAB v. DARBUN ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant - Appellant, and * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. OEM SOLUTIONS, LLC; et al., Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 13, 2012** Pasadena, California Before: PREGERSON, HAWKINS, and BEA, Circuit Judges. Plaintiffs appeal the grant of sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and the amount awarded. Darbun cross-appeals the amount of sanctions awarded. The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing sanctions. United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1251 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). The district court applied the correct legal standard for § 1927 sanctions. See B.K.B. v. Maui Police Dept., 276 F.3d 1091, 1107 (9th Cir. 2002); New Alaska Dev. Corp. v. Guetschow, 869 F.2d 1298, 1306 (9th Cir. 1989); Barnd v. City of Tacoma, 664 F.2d 1339, 1343 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that plaintiffs’ counsel was reckless because that finding was not illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from facts in the record. Hinkson, 585 F.3d at 1262. Similarly, the district court did not abuse its ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). discretion finding the amount of sanctions either by awarding too much or too little. Id. AFFIRMED.