Unpublished Disposition, 940 F.2d 1537 (9th Cir. 1990)

MEMORANDUM^** 

John N. Bach, counsel for plaintiff George Weiglein, appeals eight of the district court's orders. Weiglein is not a party to this appeal. We affirm the orders and assess attorneys' fees against Bach.

Four of Bach's claims on appeal deal with issues relevant to Weiglein's initial case. Bach alleges that the district court lacked jurisdiction or abused its discretion by: 1) dismissing plaintiff Weiglein's complaint on September 25, 1989; 2) denying plaintiff's request to transfer the underlying action back to state court; 3) imposing sanctions against Weiglein; 4) issuing sanctions against Bach and proceeding with orders to show cause re contempt against him.

Bach has already appealed all of these issues and lost. On July 14, 1989, he appealed the order granting appellees' motion to strike Bach's amended complaint and the first assessment of sanctions. That appeal was dismissed on November 28, 1989, for failure to prosecute. On October 30, 1989, he appealed the additional $1,000 sanction; this, too, was dismissed on January 8, 1990, also for failure to prosecute.

In addition to these issues being foreclosed by prior dismissals, Bach has failed to appeal them in a timely fashion. The district court dismissed Weiglein's case on October 4, 1989, but Bach did not file this appeal until December 4, 1989. This exceeds the 30 days allowed by FRAP 4(a) (1).

Bach also raises four claims relating to himself.

First, Bach claims that the district court did not have jurisdiction or abused its discretion in issuing a bench warrant for his arrest and imprisonment. The bench warrant purported only to assure that Bach was brought before the court. The district court agreed to quash it once Bach had appeared. The district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a bench warrant where Bach had delayed for four months in paying assessed sanctions.

Second, Bach claims that the district court abused its discretion in striking down the following motions: a) to quash an order to show cause; b) to disqualify Judge Ramirez; c) to expunge all information relating to appellant's arrest and imprisonment; and d) for attorneys' fees. Based on Bach's behavior, the order requiring him to appear and show cause re contempt was not improper. Regarding disqualification, Bach has made no showing that Judge Ramirez was biased. As to the expunging of information, there is no basis on which to order the records expunged. The issue of attorneys' fees is addressed in section III. Third, Bach argues that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to grant full evidentiary hearings on the contempt citations. The district court made it clear that it never held Bach in contempt; instead, it merely leveled monetary sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and Local Rule 110.¹  No full evidentiary hearing was required.

Fourth, Bach argues that the district court abused its discretion in sanctioning him $2,000 on December 11, 1989. The court imposed the additional sanctions because the original sanctions were not timely paid and because that non-payment necessitated the issuance of an order to show cause, which took the court time to research and prepare. The additional penalty was not an abuse of discretion.

We reject Bach's request for attorneys' fees against Judge Ramirez.

We grant appellees' request for fees against Bach. The main thrust of this appeal concerns Bach's complaints about Judge Ramirez and his imposition of sanctions; as such, they have no relation to appellees. The only causes of action that concern appellees have already been decided on appeal and found meritless. We closed this case as it relates to appellees on February 26, 1990. Therefore, the appeal is frivolous as to them. Under FRAP 38, which permits us to award damages and/or costs for a frivolous appeal, we grant appellees attorneys' fees commensurate with defending this appeal.

AFFIRMED.