13231 Sundance LLC v. Sean Park

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 11-55710 · 2014-03-03 · Unpublished

13231 SUNDANCE LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sean Michael PARK, Pro Se, Appellant, v. Christine Cronin, Defendant-Appellee

Area: other
Panel: Arthur L. Alarcon (author), Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, Ferdinand F. Fernandez

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 03 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

13231 SUNDANCE LLC, No. 11-55710 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00477-WQH- WMC v. SEAN MICHAEL PARK, pro se, MEMORANDUM* Appellant, v.

CHRISTINE CRONIN,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 18, 2014** Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Sean Michael Park appeals pro se from the district court’s order imposing * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). monetary sanctions against him for filing an improper notice of removal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion.

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 55 (1991). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding attorney’s fees against Park as a sanction after giving him notice and an opportunity to respond, and finding, after an evidentiary hearing, that Park misrepresented that he was an intervening party and signed defendant’s name without her authorization on the notice of removal. See id. at 43-46 (recognizing court’s inherent power to impose sanctions, including attorney’s fees, for conduct that abuses the judicial process);

see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c) (stating that a court may sanction a party sua sponte, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, for violating Fed. R. Civ. P.

11(b)).

AFFIRMED.

2 11-55710