Legal Opinion
Gregory Haynes v. City of San Francisco
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided July 23, 2012No. 10-16327PublishedCited by 31 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
REINHARDT, Circuit Judge:
Gregory Haynes (“Haynes”) was the counsel for the plaintiff in the underlying action. The district court determined that Haynes continued pursuit of plaintiffs claims, after it was clear that the claims were frivolous and in bad faith. The court also determined that the defendants had incurred excess costs and fees of over $360,000 due to his misconduct. The court imposed sanctions on Haynes in this amount pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927, declining to consider Haynes’s assertion that he could not possibly pay such an award, and, indeed, that he had no assets and…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- United States v. HinksonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
- In Re Matter of Stephen Yagman, Jerry Brown and Gerry Fleischer v. Michael Baden and Sidney WeinbergCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
- Robert McGRATH, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. COUNTY OF NEVADA; And Bill Heafey, Sheriff, Defendants-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
- Trulis v. BartonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
- United States v. Associated Convalescent Enterprises, Inc., United States of America v. Leo Branton, Jr.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Timothy Blixseth v. Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
- Tate v. AncellCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2014
- Calop Business Systems, Inc. v. City of Los AngelesDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2013
- Tallman v. CPS Security (USA), Inc.District Court, D. Nevada · 2014
- Oliver v. IN-N-Out BurgersDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2013
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.