Al Seckel, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Anthony Blumka, D/b/a Blumka Ii Gallery, Defendant,anda.w. Nasatir, Real-party-in-interest-appellant, 132 F.3d 40 (9th Cir. 1997)

 Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 132 F.3d 40 (9th Cir. 1997) Submitted Dec. 3, 1997. **Dec. 15, 1997

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; A. Wallace Tashima, District Judge, Presiding.

Before BEEZER, THOMPSON and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM* 

Iain A.W. Nasatir ("Nasatir"), attorney for Anthony Blumka, appeals the sanctions ordered by the district court. As a sanction against Nasatir, the district court reduced the sanctions previously imposed against Al Seckel's attorney by twenty-five percent. Nasatir argues that the reduction was improper because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 strictly mandates that court-initiated monetary sanctions must be paid into the court.

Nasatir, however, failed to raise this argument before the district court. Accordingly, Nasatir has waived this issue and we decline to address the merits of his argument. See Parks School of Business, Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1487 n. 4 (9th Cir. 1995).

AFFIRMED.

 **

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for disposition without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4

 *

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.