Sapiro v. Encompass Insurance

Ninth Circuit

Sapiro v. Encompass Insurance

226 F. App'x 655

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided February 16, 2007·No. No. 05-15310·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Neil D. Eisenberg appeals the district court’s imposition of Rule 11 sanctions following dismissal of a complaint he filed. The district court did not consider Berry v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 87 F.3d 387 (9th Cir.1996), which provides arguable support for the theory that Eisenberg pled. So, too, does Central Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Superior Court of San Mateo County, 2 Cal.App.4th 926, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 622 (1992). In light of these authorities, we cannot uphold the sanctions that were imposed. Golden Eagle Distrib. Corp. v. Burroughs Corp., 801 F.2d 1531 (9th Cir.1986).

REVERSED.

Footnotes

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

MEMORANDUM **

Neil D. Eisenberg appeals the district court’s imposition of Rule 11 sanctions following dismissal of a complaint he filed. The district court did not consider Berry v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 87 F.3d 387 (9th Cir.1996), which provides arguable support for the theory that Eisenberg pled. So, too, does Central Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Superior Court of San Mateo County, 2 Cal.App.4th 926, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 622 (1992). In light of these authorities, we cannot uphold the sanctions that were imposed. Golden Eagle Distrib. Corp. v. Burroughs Corp., 801 F.2d 1531 (9th Cir.1986).

REVERSED.

Footnotes

Sapiro v. Encompass Insurance, 226 F. App'x 655 (9th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

226 F. App'x 655 (Sapiro v. Encompass Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Footnotes

Related