IN RE: Allana BARONI (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Richard Lawrence Antognini and Michael S. Riley, counsel for the chapter 7 debtor, appeal from the district court’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s imposition of sanctions under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 1291. We review de novo the district court’s decision on appeal from the bankruptcy court and apply the same standards of review applied by the district court. Motor Vehicle Cas. Co. v. Thorpe Insulation Co. ( In re Thorpe Insulation Co. ), 677 F.3d 869, 879 (9th Cir. 2012). We review for an abuse of discretion a bankruptcy court’s award of sanctions. Miller v. Cardinale ( In re DeVille ), 361 F.3d 539, 547 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by imposing sanctions on counsel for filing a frivolous motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9024. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011(b); Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 929 F.2d 1358, 1362, 1367 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc) (sanctions for a motion for reconsideration may appropriately be imposed on the signer of a paper “if either a) the paper is filed for an improper purpose, or b) the paper is ‘frivolous’ ”); see also In re DeVille, 361 F.3d at 551-52 (under Rule 9011, adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard is all the process required). Contrary to appellants’ contention, Rule 9011(d)’s inapplicability to discovery does not preclude sanctions for the filing of a motion for reconsideration under Rule 9024.

We reject as unsupported by the record appellants’ contention that the bankruptcy court did not comply with the requirements of Rule 9011(c)(3).

AFFIRMED.