Legal Opinion

Smith v. Sulista

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided April 18, 2005No. 04-15301; D.C. No. CV-02-00158-KJD/RJJPublished

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM**

David L. Smith appeals pro se the district court’s order imposing sanctions on him for filing frivolous actions regarding a property foreclosure. We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to impose sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. G.C. and K.B. Investments, Inc. v. Wilson, 826 F.3d 1096,1109 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.

A district court may impose Rule 11 sanctions if a paper filed with the court is for an improper purpose, or if it is frivolous. See Fed.R.Civ.P. ll(b)(1)-(2); Townsend v. Holman Consulting, 929 F.2d 1358, 1362 (9th…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Bianchi v. RylaarsdamCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
  2. Clarke County Development Corp. v. Affinity Gaming, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2016

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API