William S. Lund, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Donald H. Albrecht, Defendantandgreines, Martin, Stein & Richland; Robert A. Olson; Irvingh. Greines, Appellants, 17 F.3d 395 (9th Cir. 1994)

MEMORANDUM^** 

This is an appeal from the district court's order sanctioning Robert Olson, attorney for the appellants, for failure to appear at a status conference. Olson contends that the court lacked jurisdiction to sanction conduct that occurred after a satisfaction of judgment was filed in the case. He also argues that he could not be sanctioned without a finding of gross negligence, reckless disregard of a court order or bad faith.

The district court had jurisdiction to impose sanctions on Olson. Because the satisfaction of judgment was not filed until June 4, 1992, it is clear that on June 3, 1992, the district court had jurisdiction to set a status conference. Furthermore, in Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (1990), the Supreme Court held that the district court had jurisdiction to grant sanctions under Rule 11 even after the complaint was voluntarily dismissed. The court noted that motions for costs and attorneys' fees are independent proceedings that are supplemental to the original proceeding. 496 U.S. at 395. Furthermore, it is "well established that a federal court may consider collateral issues after an action is no longer pending." Id.

We reverse the district court's order, however, because there was no finding of bad faith or willfulness. See Zambrano v. City of Tustin, 885 F.2d 1473, 1478 (9th Cir. 1989) (court must make finding of bad faith to impose sanctions pursuant to it inherent authority or local rules).

REVERSED.