Cox v. The Summit at Turtle Ridge Community Association

N.D. California

Cox v. The Summit at Turtle Ridge Community Association

DecidedFebruary 5, 2025

Docket3:24-cv-03270

StatusUnknown

This text of Cox v. The Summit at Turtle Ridge Community Association (Cox v. The Summit at Turtle Ridge Community Association) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cox v. The Summit at Turtle Ridge Community Association, (N.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALVIN COX, Case No. 24-cv-03270-VC

Appellant, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR v. ATTORNEYS' FEES

THE SUMMIT AT TURTLE RIDGE Re: Dkt. No. 15 COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, Appellee.

The motion for attorneys’ fees is denied. There is no indication that the appeal or the underlying subpoena was the product of subjective bad faith. So sanctions can’t be awarded under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. See B.K.B. v. Maui Police Department, 276 F.3d 1091, 1107 (9th Cir. 2002), abrogated on other grounds by Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, 587 U.S. 541 (2019). As for Rule 45(d)(1), the bankruptcy judge did find that the discovery sought by the subpoena would have served an improper purpose. But it isn’t apparent that the subpoena was initially issued for an improper purpose. Plus, “courts have interpreted Rule 45(d)(1) sanctions as applying primarily to reimburse a non-party’s costs incurred in complying with a subpoena, not merely litigating a motion to quash.” Fujikura Ltd. v. Finisar Corp., 2015 WL 5782351, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2015). With regard to F.R.A.P. 38 and 28 U.S.C. § 1912, it’s a closer question, particularly given the abuse of discretion standard. Summit’s argument that the appeal was objectively baseless is not unreasonable. But the Court cannot make a definitive determination in that regard. Even if any of the predicates for the asserted bases for sanctions were satisfied, the Court would decline to exercise its discretion to award fees. See Legal Voice v. Stormans Inc., 738 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Rule 45(d)(1) is discretionary.”); In re National Mass Media Telecommunication Systems, Inc., 152 F.3d 1178, 1181 (9th Cir. 1998) (appellate court has “discretion to award damages for a frivolous appeal” under F.R.A.P. 38, § 1912, and § 1927). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 5, 2025 : a VINCE CHHABRIA United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALVIN COX, Case No. 24-cv-03270-VC

Appellant, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR v. ATTORNEYS' FEES

THE SUMMIT AT TURTLE RIDGE Re: Dkt. No. 15 COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, Appellee.

The motion for attorneys’ fees is denied. There is no indication that the appeal or the underlying subpoena was the product of subjective bad faith. So sanctions can’t be awarded under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. See B.K.B. v. Maui Police Department, 276 F.3d 1091, 1107 (9th Cir. 2002), abrogated on other grounds by Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, 587 U.S. 541 (2019). As for Rule 45(d)(1), the bankruptcy judge did find that the discovery sought by the subpoena would have served an improper purpose. But it isn’t apparent that the subpoena was initially issued for an improper purpose. Plus, “courts have interpreted Rule 45(d)(1) sanctions as applying primarily to reimburse a non-party’s costs incurred in complying with a subpoena, not merely litigating a motion to quash.” Fujikura Ltd. v. Finisar Corp., 2015 WL 5782351, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2015). With regard to F.R.A.P. 38 and 28 U.S.C. § 1912, it’s a closer question, particularly given the abuse of discretion standard. Summit’s argument that the appeal was objectively baseless is not unreasonable. But the Court cannot make a definitive determination in that regard. Even if any of the predicates for the asserted bases for sanctions were satisfied, the Court would decline to exercise its discretion to award fees. See Legal Voice v. Stormans Inc., 738 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Rule 45(d)(1) is discretionary.”); In re National Mass Media Telecommunication Systems, Inc., 152 F.3d 1178, 1181 (9th Cir. 1998) (appellate court has “discretion to award damages for a frivolous appeal” under F.R.A.P. 38, § 1912, and § 1927). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 5, 2025 : a VINCE CHHABRIA United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Cox v. The Summit at Turtle Ridge Community Association, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-v-the-summit-at-turtle-ridge-community-association-cand-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack