Bank of America, N.A. v. Rae Heimer, et al, No. 09-16443 (9th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 07 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PEDRO BARREY, Plaintiff, No. 09-16443 D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00573-GMS v. MEMORANDUM * R.A. HEIMER, Respondent - Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant - Appellee, and OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Submitted August 23, 2010 ** Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Rae Heimer, a non-party to the underlying action, appeals pro se from the district court s order sanctioning her under its inherent power to curb abusive litigation practices after dismissing the complaint she prepared for failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 55 (1991), and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing nominal monetary sanctions on Heimer, an Arizona certified document preparer, under its inherent authority to curb abusive litigation practices and after finding that she improperly practiced law in drafting the complaint in this action for an improper purpose. See Ariz. Code of Jud. Admin. § 7-208(J)(5) (prohibiting document preparers from providing legal advice or services to another and any kind of advice, opinion or recommendation to a consumer about possible legal rights, remedies, defenses, options or strategies. ); Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1134 (9th Cir. 2001) (affirming inherent-power sanctions based on a finding of bad faith, vexatiousness, wantonness, oppressiveness, or willful disobedience of a court order); Fink v. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 09-16443 Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding of bad faith for purposes of inherent-power sanctions includes a broad range of willful improper conduct, such as trying to gain a tactical advantage). Heimer s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. 3 09-16443
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.
