ALCANTRA v. COYOTE VALLEY BAND OF POMO INDIANS (2020)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Correy ALCANTRA, de facto Tribal Chairman of the Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COYOTE VALLEY BAND OF POMO INDIANS; et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 18-16482

Decided: February 25, 2020

Before: W. FLETCHER and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY,** District Judge.

Richard Philip Sax, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Richard Sax, Santa Rosa, CA, for Plaintiff - Appellee Little Fawn Boland, Attorney, Rosette & Associates PC, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants - Appellants

MEMORANDUM ***

Defendants appeal the denial of sanctions against Plaintiff Correy Alcantra’s counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The decision to impose sanctions, whether under Rule 11 or § 1927, is a matter of discretion for the district court. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405, 110 S.Ct. 2447, 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990); Salstrom v. Citicorp Credit Servs., Inc., 74 F.3d 183, 185 (9th Cir. 1996). Here, the record shows Alcantra’s attorney withdrew the official capacity claims against the Tribal Council members and attempted to withdraw the ICRA and constructive trust claims even before Defendants filed their motion for sanctions. On these facts, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to impose sanctions.

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Out of date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