This is just what the doctor ordered. You dont mind if I copy your comment for court now do you?? This is the usapa play and by your very own admission you have just stated plainly that it is the intent of usapa to breach our agreement/contract. The only thing that will make this any better is for you to be a BPR member however its not at all necessary as it can be shown that thru your involvement with usapa you learned this. THANK YOU Underpants this is golden right here.
AWA320
Well okay I think you will have plenty of court time! MM USAPA seeks the following remedies: i) an award of its reasonable attorneys’
fees and costs arising from this motion; ii) an award of its reasonable attorneys’ fees and
6 And this in the context of constant threats of serial prosecution of “DFR II” and so on.
7 Another cost inflicted was the motion to transfer which was rejected (08-1633, Doc. # 66, p.
8) after co-defendants proffered case law that they had not researched adequately that did not
overcome the express wording of the local rule requiring a “pending” case.
Case 2:10-cv-01570-ROS Document 70 Filed 11/24/10 Page 21 of 24
- 16 -
costs incurred by reason of having to defend against the Cross Claim in this action; iii)
that the Cross Claim be dismissed, with prejudice; iv) any other relief that the Court
deems warranted.
USAPA does not bring this motion to the Court lightly. It seeks only a remedy
that would deter the harm, which is the pressing of claims barred by the Ninth Circuit in
Addington, barred by the law of the case, and/or waived by these defendants. It has
incurred fees and expense directly related to defending against the barred Cross Claim.
It has brought this motion early, without delay and before more expenses could be
incurred, precisely to mitigate its injury.
This Court has jurisdiction to impose sanctions upon any party, or its counsel,
who has presented papers to it even where the Court determines that it lacks subject
matter jurisdiction. Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131 (1992); Orange Prod. Credit
Ass’n v. Frontline Ventures, Ltd., 792 F.2d 797, 801 (9th Cir. 1986).8 This is true even
of the sanction of dismissal with prejudice. In re Exxon Valdez, 102 F.3d 429, 431 (9th
Cir. 1996); Caribbean Broadcasting Sys. v. Cable & Wireless PLC, 148 F.3d 1080,
1091 (D.C. Cir. 1998).
Similarly, the fact that an offending party has filed an appeal (or petition for
certiorari) is no bar to sanctions. See Mahone v. Ray, 326 F.3d 1176, 1180 (11th Cir.
2003); Val-Land Farms, Inc. v. Third Nat’l Bank, 937 F.2d 1110, 1117 (6th Cir. 1991);
8 Noting that monetary sanctions may not be awarded against a represented party for a violation
that consists of the assertion of unwarranted legal contention. Rule 11(c)(5)(A). No such bar
exists for sanctioning counsel, however.
Case PS maybe you can put some of that 40watt legal jargon for us small brain folk! MM!
