JUN-EN ENTERPRISES V. PETER LIN, No. 14-56613 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 23 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN-EN ENTERPRISE, a Taiwan corporation; AGAPE INDUSTRY CO., LTD, a Taiwan corporation, No. 14-56613 D.C. No. 2:12-cv-02734-PSG-SS Plaintiffs-counter-defendants, MEMORANDUM* and SHI RU YANG; SHIU-YING LU, Third-party-defendants, and RUSSELL JAMES COLE, Appellant, v. PETER K. LIN; AGAPE INDUSTRIAL, INC., Defendants-counter-claimants - Appellees. JUN-EN ENTERPRISE, a Taiwan corporation; AGAPE INDUSTRY CO., LTD, a Taiwan corporation, * No. 14-56621 D.C. No. 2:12-cv-02734-PSG-SS This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Plaintiffs-counter-defendants, and SHI RU YANG; SHIU-YING LU, Third-party-defendants, and HOW GUIN ROBERT FONG, Appellant, v. PETER K. LIN; AGAPE INDUSTRIAL, INC., Defendants-counter-claimants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted June 9, 2016 Pasadena, California Before: GOULD and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI,** Judge. Russell James Cole (“Cole”) and How Guin Robert Fong (“Fong”) appeal the district court’s orders imposing sanctions and attorneys’ fees pursuant to ** The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge for the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (“Rule 11”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 409 (1990). The district court properly held that Cole and Fong failed to conduct “an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b), before filing pleadings asserting time-barred claims for breach of an oral contract and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 339(1) (two-year statute of limitations). Cole and Fong, however, made nonfrivolous arguments that a breach of fiduciary duty claim may have reasonably been timely. See id. §§ 338 (three-year statute of limitations), 343 (four-year statute of limitations). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of Rule 11 sanctions for the breach of contract and tortious interference claims, but vacate with respect to the breach of fiduciary duty claim. We remand to the district court to reconsider the amount of sanctions and to recalculate the attorneys’ fees award, as appropriate. AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED. 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.