Unpublished Disposition, 940 F.2d 669 (9th Cir. 1990)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 940 F.2d 669 (9th Cir. 1990)

PIONEER LUMBER TREATING, INC., Pioneer Lumber & Treating Co.of Kawaihae, Inc., William Legg, Mark R. Thomason,Esq., Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.COUNTY OF HAWAII, Guy Paul, Ralph Bateman, Jefri Metheany,Wayne Deluz, Benton Bolos, William Schuman,Richard Betts, Lon Tatum, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 90-15235.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 13, 1991.* Decided July 19, 1991.

Before BRUNETTI, KOZINSKI, and RYMER, Circuit Judges:


ORDER** 

Appellant was the attorney for plaintiffs Pioneer Lumber Treating, Inc., and others in a civil RICO action in the District Court for the District of Hawaii. In an order of January 22, 1990, the district court dismissed the complaint and imposed a Rule 11 sanction for the filing of a frivolous pleading. In an order clarifying the Rule 11 award, the court made clear its intent to impose the award on attorney Thomason, and not on the plaintiffs. Thomason appeals from the Rule 11 award and the clarifying order.

In making its Rule 11 award, the district court did not indicate the amount of the sanction, but rather left the determination of the fees and costs to a magistrate. The notice of appeal, and first amended notice of appeal, each dated November 21, 1990, appeal only from the district court's orders entered on January 22, 1990, granting defendant's motion to dismiss and awarding sanctions, and on February 12, 1990, clarifying the Rule 11 award.

We ordered supplemental briefing to determine whether a final order quantifying the Rule 11 award has been entered. Although the parties disagree whether this court has jurisdiction under Jensen Elec. v. Moore, Caldwell, Rowland & Dodd, 873 F.2d 1327, 1329 (9th Cir. 1989), there is no dispute that no order regarding the amount of the Rule 11 award has been entered. It is our view that Jensen prevents appellate jurisdiction in this case.

DISMISSED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Circuit Rule 34-4

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Circuit Rule 36-3

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.