Legal Opinion
Moore v. Keegan Management Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided March 1, 1996No. Nos. 94-15713, 94-16135PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by Judge POOLE; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge O’SCANNLAIN.
POOLE, Circuit Judge:
We consider under what circumstances and pursuant to what authority attorneys may be sanctioned for the filing of a complaint. Because we find such circumstances *433not present here, we reverse the district court’s order imposing $100,000 in sanctions against attorneys Elizabeth Cabraser and Richard Jaeger, and their respective law firms, Lieff, Cabraser & Heimann and Feldman, Waldman & Kline.
I
The merits of this ease, a securities class-action, are not at issue. The sole question on appeal…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Roadway Express, Inc. v. PiperSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entertainment Group, Div. of Cadence Industries Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Richard L. Zaldivar v. City of Los Angeles, and Margaret Salazar, Intervenors-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- In Re: Keegan Management Co., Securities Litigation. Michael Moore, and Lieff, Cabraser & Heimann Elizabeth J. Cabraser v. Keegan Management Company, a Delaware Corporation, Michael Moore, and Richard L. Jaeger Feldman, Waldman & Kline v. Keegan Management Company, a Delaware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
- United States v. Marion Seltzer, Esq., Vaughn Rosario, A/K/A Vaughn MichaelsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2000
- J.H. v. County of San MateoDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2022
- Whitaker v. Peet's Coffee, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2022