OpenJurist

919 F2d 144 Estate of Price v. Nevada Resort Association

919 F.2d 144

Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

ESTATE OF Kathleen Jo PRICE, deceased; Janine Adamick;
Joseph Adamick, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
NEVADA RESORT ASSOCIATION; Trustees of Nevada Resort
Association Health and Welfare Trust; Elias Ghanem;
Bally's formerly known as MGM, Inc. and MGM Grand Hotels,
Inc.; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; Thomas Byer;
MGM Grand Hotels and Certain Subsidiaries; Transamerica
Occidental Life Insurance Company; Las Vegas Medical
Center, Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 87-2575, 89-16462.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 7, 1990.
Decided Nov. 21, 1990.

Before JAMES R. BROWNING, PREGERSON and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

1

MEMORANDUM*

2

Janice Hayes, attorney for the estate of Kathleen Jo Price, appeals the district court's orders (1) imposing Rule 11 sanctions against her in the amount of $3,000, (2) denying her motions for sanctions against Elias Ghanem, Thomas Byer, and the Las Vegas Medical Center (collectively the Medical Defendants), and (3) releasing the bond Hayes posted to obtain a stay pending her appeal of the order imposing sanctions against her. We affirm.

3

The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions against Janice Hayes based on her numerous filings of frivolous papers. See Cooter & Gell v. Hartmax Corp., 110 S.Ct. 2447, 2461 (1990). The court also acted within its discretion in refusing to award sanctions against the Medical Defendants. Hayes has not pointed to any conduct of the Medical Defendants that would justify the imposition of sanctions against them. Finally, the court did not err in releasing the bond given by Hayes pending her appeal (no. 87-2575) of the order imposing sanctions against her because on April 20, 1989, a panel of this court dismissed the appeal.

4

AFFIRMED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3