Havensight Capital LLC v. Nike, Inc., No. 15-56607 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThis appeal stemmed from an action alleging wrongful conduct by Nike against Havensight (the tortious interference action). The tortious interference action was filed after Havensight's prior action against Nike, alleging infringement upon a soccer brand owned by Havensight (the infringement action), was dismissed with prejudice. The Ninth Circuit dismissed Havensight's appeal as to the sanctions imposed under 28 U.S.C. 1927, the vexatious litigant order, the denial of plaintiff's motion to strike, and the denial of plaintiff's application for default because those matters were not included in the notice of appeal. The panel dismissed the amended complaint because the notice of appeal was untimely where plaintiff's premature filing of a post-judgment motion did not extend the otherwise applicable appeal period. Finally, the panel deferred to the district court's factual findings as to whether plaintiff's filings were sufficiently frivolous or abusive such that Rule 11 sanctions were appropriate, and affirmed the sanctions order because the findings were amply supported by the record.
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More › You already receive new opinion summaries from Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Court Description: Timely Appeal / Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 Sanctions. The panel dismissed for lack of jurisdiction plaintiff’s appeal of the sanctions imposed under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, the vexatious litigant order, the denial of plaintiff’s motion to strike, the denial of plaintiff’s application for default, and the dismissal of the amended complaint; and affirmed the district court’s order imposing fees as sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. The panel dismissed plaintiffs’ appeal as to the sanctions imposed under § 1927, the vexatious litigant order, the denial of plaintiff’s motion to strike and the denial of plaintiff’s application for default because those matters were not included in the notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B). The district court did not enter a separate judgment after it dismissed plaintiff’s amended complaint on February 18, 2015, and judgment was deemed entered on July 15, 2015, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(7)(A)(ii). Plaintiff filed the notice of appeal on October 15, 2015. One day after the district court dismissed the amended complaint, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. The panel dismissed the amended complaint because the notice of appeal was untimely. The panel concluded that HAVENSIGHT CAPITAL V. NIKE 3 plaintiff’s premature filing of a post-judgment motion did not extend the otherwise applicable appeal period. The panel deferred to the district court’s factual findings as to whether plaintiff’s filings were sufficiently frivolous or abusive such that Rule 11 sanctions were appropriate, and affirmed the sanctions order because the findings were amply supported by the record.
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.