QUILLINAN v. AINSWORTH (2019)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Kevin Daniel QUILLINAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Russell AINSWORTH; et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 18-16163

Decided: February 28, 2019

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Kevin Daniel Quillinan, Pro Se Joel Feldman, Mike Kanovitz, Counsel, Jon Loevy, Frank Newell, Loevy & Loevy, Chicago, IL, for Defendants-Appellants

MEMORANDUM ***

Defendants appeal from the district court's order denying their motion for sanctions in Quillinan's civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Winterrowd v. Am. Gen. Annuity Ins. Co., 556 F.3d 815, 819 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendants’ motion for sanctions because defendants failed to develop the record sufficiently to demonstrate that sanctions were warranted. See Christian v. Mattel, Inc., 286 F.3d 1118, 1127 (9th Cir. 2002) (factors to consider in determining whether to impose sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11); De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147-48 (9th Cir. 1990) (factors to consider in determining whether to declare an individual a vexatious litigant and order pre-filing restrictions).

Quillinan's motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 13) is denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law