Gti Capital Holdings, LLC v. Comerica Bank

Ninth Circuit

Gti Capital Holdings, LLC v. Comerica Bank

399 F. App'x 236

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 8, 2010

Docket09-60039

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 399 F. App'x 236 (Gti Capital Holdings, LLC v. Comerica Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gti Capital Holdings, LLC v. Comerica Bank, 399 F. App'x 236 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Appellants challenge the bankruptcy court’s imposition of sanctions, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(B), following the denial of their Rule 37 motion to compel depositions. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d)(1) and 1291. We affirm.

First, the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to impose the sanctions, despite previously granting Appellants’ request to voluntarily withdraw their complaints. “It is well established that a federal court may consider collateral issues after an action is no longer pending.” Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 395, 110 S.Ct. 2447, 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990). Rule 37(a)(5)(B) sanctions are collateral because they aim to deter abuse of the judicial process and have no bearing, and therefore no res judicata effect, on the case’s underlying merits. Id. at 396, 110 S.Ct. 2447; see also Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 139, 112 S.Ct. 1076, 117 L.Ed.2d 280 (1992).

Second, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions under Rule 37(a)(5)(B). Appellants have failed at all levels to demonstrate that their motion to compel was “substantially justified,” i.e., that “reasonable people could differ as to whether the party requested must comply” with their motion to compel. See Reygo Pac. Corp. v. Johnston Pump Co., 680 F.2d 647, 649 (9th Cir.1982).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Appellants challenge the bankruptcy court’s imposition of sanctions, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(B), following the denial of their Rule 37 motion to compel depositions. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d)(1) and 1291. We affirm.

First, the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to impose the sanctions, despite previously granting Appellants’ request to voluntarily withdraw their complaints. “It is well established that a federal court may consider collateral issues after an action is no longer pending.” Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 395, 110 S.Ct. 2447, 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990). Rule 37(a)(5)(B) sanctions are collateral because they aim to deter abuse of the judicial process and have no bearing, and therefore no res judicata effect, on the case’s underlying merits. Id. at 396, 110 S.Ct. 2447; see also Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 139, 112 S.Ct. 1076, 117 L.Ed.2d 280 (1992).

Second, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions under Rule 37(a)(5)(B). Appellants have failed at all levels to demonstrate that their motion to compel was “substantially justified,” i.e., that “reasonable people could differ as to whether the party requested must comply” with their motion to compel. See Reygo Pac. Corp. v. Johnston Pump Co., 680 F.2d 647, 649 (9th Cir.1982).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

399 F. App'x 236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gti-capital-holdings-llc-v-comerica-bank-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack