TINA DIAMOS V. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, No. 16-15591 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 3 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TINA DIAMOS, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-15591 Plaintiff, D.C. No. 3:13-cv-04997-NC and MEMORANDUM* ALDON LOUIS BOLANOS, former attorney for plaintiff Tina Diamos, Appellant, v. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Nathanael M. Cousins, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted September 26, 2017*** Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Aldon Louis Bolanos, a former attorney who represented plaintiff Tina Diamos, appeals pro se from the district court’s order imposing sanctions on Bolanos. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Ollier v. Sweetwater Union High Sch. Dist., 768 F.3d 843, 859 (9th Cir. 2014) (discovery sanctions); Lahiri v. Universal Music & Video Distrib. Corp., 606 F.3d 1216, 1218 (9th Cir. 2010) (sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by sanctioning Bolanos in the amount of attorney’s fees and costs associated with cancelled depositions because Bolanos scheduled the depositions for dates when he knew he would be suspended from the practice of law and failed to disclose his suspension to the district court and opposing counsel in a timely manner. See 28 U.S.C. § 1927 (explaining that an attorney “who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(2) (“The court may impose an appropriate sanction--including the reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees incurred by any party--on a person who impedes, delays, or frustrates the fair examination of the deponent.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b) (authorizing sanctions for failure to comply with court order); Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d) (authorizing sanctions for failure to appear at deposition). 2 16-15591 The court’s May 12, 2017 order to show cause (Docket Entry No. 19) is discharged. AFFIRMED. 3 16-15591

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.