Transamerica Leasing, Inc. v. Compania Anonima Venezolana de Navegacion

Ninth Circuit

Transamerica Leasing, Inc. v. Compania Anonima Venezolana de Navegacion

93 F.3d 675, 96 Daily Journal DAR 10391, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6327, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 21925, 1996 WL 479522

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided August 26, 1996·No. No. 95-15625·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

The district court ruled that in failing to cite an unpublished decision of the Ninth Circuit denying a petition for writ of mandamus in Triton’s motion to the court to reconsider its transfer order Triton’s counsel violated Rule 3.3(a)(3) of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 3.3(a)(3) prohibits an attorney from knowingly failing to disclose controlling authority di[676]*676rectly adverse to the position advocated. The rule is an important one, especially in the district courts, where its faithful observance by attorneys assures that judges are not the victims of lawyers hiding the legal ball. However, the rule did not apply in this case.

The order of the Ninth Circuit denying the petition for writ of mandamus did not reach the merits of the transfer order; it merely held that petitioners had not demonstrated the case warranted an intervention of the court through the writ of mandamus. See Bauman v. United States District Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir.1977). Consequently, counsel did not knowingly fail to disclose to the district court controlling authority directly adverse to the position she advocated. Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 409, 413 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1021, 106 S.Ct. 571, 88 L.Ed.2d 555 (1985) is distinguishable; in Hatch this court reviewed and rejected the petition for writ of mandamus on the merits.

The district court’s imposition of sanctions is therefore REVERSED.

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

The district court ruled that in failing to cite an unpublished decision of the Ninth Circuit denying a petition for writ of mandamus in Triton’s motion to the court to reconsider its transfer order Triton’s counsel violated Rule 3.3(a)(3) of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 3.3(a)(3) prohibits an attorney from knowingly failing to disclose controlling authority di[676]*676rectly adverse to the position advocated. The rule is an important one, especially in the district courts, where its faithful observance by attorneys assures that judges are not the victims of lawyers hiding the legal ball. However, the rule did not apply in this case.

The order of the Ninth Circuit denying the petition for writ of mandamus did not reach the merits of the transfer order; it merely held that petitioners had not demonstrated the case warranted an intervention of the court through the writ of mandamus. See Bauman v. United States District Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir.1977). Consequently, counsel did not knowingly fail to disclose to the district court controlling authority directly adverse to the position she advocated. Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 409, 413 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1021, 106 S.Ct. 571, 88 L.Ed.2d 555 (1985) is distinguishable; in Hatch this court reviewed and rejected the petition for writ of mandamus on the merits.

The district court’s imposition of sanctions is therefore REVERSED.

Transamerica Leasing, Inc. v. Compania Anonima Venezolana de Navegacion, 93 F.3d 675, 96 Daily Journal DAR 10391, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6327, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 21925, 1996 WL 479522 (9th Cir. 1996).

Pincite

93 F.3d 675 (Transamerica Leasing, Inc. v. Compania Anonima Venezolana de Navegacion) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related