Kano v. National Consumer Cooperative Bank

Ninth Circuit

Kano v. National Consumer Cooperative Bank

22 F.3d 899

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 18, 1994

DocketNo. 92-16754

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 22 F.3d 899 (Kano v. National Consumer Cooperative 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

Kano v. National Consumer Cooperative Bank, 22 F.3d 899 (9th Cir. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The opening brief filed on behalf of appellant violated Fed.RApp.P. 32(a) in that the lines were not double-spaced, but were spaced only one-and-one half spaces apart. Furthermore, the footnotes were of a typeface much smaller than that permitted by the rule, and contained approximately eight lines per inch as opposed to six lines per inch in a normal single-spaced format. We estimate that the opening brief was the equivalent of at least sixty-five pages in length, far exceeding the fifty-page limit.

Counsel for appellant took full responsibility for the form of the brief. However, it is apparent from the reply brief filed by counsel that he knows what the spacing requirements are, even though the footnotes in the reply brief also do not comply with Rule 32. Consequently, we impose sanctions against counsel for the appellant in the amount of $1,500. See Adriana Intern. Corp. v. Thoeren, 913 F.2d 1406, 1417 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1109, 111 S.Ct. 1019, 112 L.Ed.2d 1100 (1991) (imposing sanctions for failure to comply with Fed.RApp.P. 32(a)); [900]*900see also 28 U.S.C. 1927 (authorizing sanctions for failure to comply with rules governing form of briefs). The court acknowledges payment of the sanction.

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

ORDER

The opening brief filed on behalf of appellant violated Fed.RApp.P. 32(a) in that the lines were not double-spaced, but were spaced only one-and-one half spaces apart. Furthermore, the footnotes were of a typeface much smaller than that permitted by the rule, and contained approximately eight lines per inch as opposed to six lines per inch in a normal single-spaced format. We estimate that the opening brief was the equivalent of at least sixty-five pages in length, far exceeding the fifty-page limit.

Counsel for appellant took full responsibility for the form of the brief. However, it is apparent from the reply brief filed by counsel that he knows what the spacing requirements are, even though the footnotes in the reply brief also do not comply with Rule 32. Consequently, we impose sanctions against counsel for the appellant in the amount of $1,500. See Adriana Intern. Corp. v. Thoeren, 913 F.2d 1406, 1417 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1109, 111 S.Ct. 1019, 112 L.Ed.2d 1100 (1991) (imposing sanctions for failure to comply with Fed.RApp.P. 32(a)); [900]*900see also 28 U.S.C. 1927 (authorizing sanctions for failure to comply with rules governing form of briefs). The court acknowledges payment of the sanction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 F.3d 899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kano-v-national-consumer-cooperative-bank-ca9-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack