Search The Site
Islamic Shura Council of S. Cal. v. FBI, No. 12-55305, 2013 WL 3992123 (9th Cir. July 31, 2013) (per curiam)
July 31, 2013 Posted by

Re: Defendant’s appeal of district court’s order granting plaintiff’s motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)

Disposition: Reversing the order granting the motion for sanctions and vacating the order awarding fees

  • Attorney Fees:  The Ninth Circuit finds that “[t]he motion for sanctions should not have been granted.”  The court notes that what plaintiff “fails to observe . . . is that [defendant] had already ‘corrected’ the challenged pleadings and provided all the information it was obligated to provide to the district court before [plaintiff] filed its motion for sanctions.”  The Ninth Circuit states that, “no party now disputes . . . that [defendant] provided the district court with a complete and accurate account of the facts of this case during the in camera sessions.”  The court finds that, “[plaintiff] moved for sanctions long after the district court had ruled on the adequacy of the government’s eventual compliance with FOIA, and a fortiori after it had ruled [defendant]‘s original response had been inadequate and misleading.”  Therefore, “the motion for sanctions was made after ‘judicial rejection of the offending contention,’” and, “[t]he motion for sanctions should not have been granted.
Search Court Decisions

View Court Decisions by Topic
Court Decisions by Date
Stay Connected YouTube Twitter Facebook Sign Up for E-Mail Updates Subscribe to News Feeds