RICHARD ANTOGNINI V. GREEN TREE SERVICING LLC, No. 17-55554 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 16 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS In re: ALLANA BARONI, No. 17-55554 Debtor. ______________________________ D.C. No. 2:16-cv-07226-PA RICHARD LAWRENCE ANTOGNINI; MICHAEL S. RILEY, Esquire, MEMORANDUM* Appellants, v. GREEN TREE SERVICING LLC; et al., Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Richard Lawrence Antognini and Michael S. Riley, counsel for the chapter 7 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). debtor, appeal from the district court’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s imposition of sanctions under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 1291. We review de novo the district court’s decision on appeal from the bankruptcy court and apply the same standards of review applied by the district court. Motor Vehicle Cas. Co. v. Thorpe Insulation Co. (In re Thorpe Insulation Co.), 677 F.3d 869, 879 (9th Cir. 2012). We review for an abuse of discretion a bankruptcy court’s award of sanctions. Miller v. Cardinale (In re DeVille), 361 F.3d 539, 547 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm. The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by imposing sanctions on counsel for filing a frivolous motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9024. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011(b); Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 929 F.2d 1358, 1362, 1367 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc) (sanctions for a motion for reconsideration may appropriately be imposed on the signer of a paper “if either a) the paper is filed for an improper purpose, or b) the paper is ‘frivolous’”); see also In re DeVille, 361 F.3d at 551-52 (under Rule 9011, adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard is all the process required). Contrary to appellants’ contention, Rule 9011(d)’s inapplicability to discovery does not preclude sanctions for the filing of a motion for reconsideration under 2 17-55554 Rule 9024. We reject as unsupported by the record appellants’ contention that the bankruptcy court did not comply with the requirements of Rule 9011(c)(3). AFFIRMED. 3 17-55554

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.