KEVIN QUILLINAN V. RUSSELL AINSWORTH, No. 18-16163 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FEB 28 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KEVIN DANIEL QUILLINAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 18-16163 D.C. No. 4:17-cv-00077-KAW v. MEMORANDUM* RUSSELL AINSWORTH; et al., Defendants-Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Kandis A. Westmore, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted February 19, 2019*** Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Defendants appeal from the district court’s order denying their motion for sanctions in Quillinan’s civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act * 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). Defendants’ request for oral argument, set forth in their opening brief, is denied. (“RICO”) action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Winterrowd v. Am. Gen. Annuity Ins. Co., 556 F.3d 815, 819 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendants’ motion for sanctions because defendants failed to develop the record sufficiently to demonstrate that sanctions were warranted. See Christian v. Mattel, Inc., 286 F.3d 1118, 1127 (9th Cir. 2002) (factors to consider in determining whether to impose sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11); De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147-48 (9th Cir. 1990) (factors to consider in determining whether to declare an individual a vexatious litigant and order pre-filing restrictions). Quillinan’s motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 13) is denied as unnecessary. AFFIRMED. 2 18-16163

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.