Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

439 F.3d 1141

Docket No. 04-16464.

Macias v. McGrath

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued and Submitted Feb. 14, 2006.

Filed March 13, 2006.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 2006-03-13

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 2006

1 federal appellate ·

1 counsel of record

Relies on Fj Hanshaw Enterprises Inc Frederick Hanshaw v. Emerald River Development Inc Gordon Richard a Marshack · 322 F. Supp. 2d 1041 - MacIas v. McGrath

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2006-03-13

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Jeff Dominic Price, Santa Monica, CA, for appellant.

¶2Before BARRY G. SILVERMAN, SUSAN P. GRABER, arid RICHARD R. CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

¶3ORDER

¶4Jeff Dominic Price, counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant Teresa Macias in the companion case, Macias v. McGrath, No. 04-15968,1 appeals the district court’s published post-judgment Order Re Sanctions and Referral for Attorney Discipline, sanctioning him $1,500 for the unauthorized practice of law under Northern District of California Civil Local Rules 11-1(a), -8. See Macias v. McGrath, 322 F.Supp.2d 1041 (N.D.Cal. 2004). Price was not afforded all of the procedural protections required for due process in the context of criminal contempt proceedings. See F.J. Hanshaw Enters., Inc. v. Emerald River Dev., Inc., 244 F.3d 1128, 1139(9th Cir.2001) (“We hold that when a court uses its inherent powers to impose sanctions that are criminal in nature, it must provide the same due process protections that would be available in a criminal contempt proceeding.”). We vacate the order without prejudice to future prosecution or disciplinary proceedings for the alleged violation.

¶5VACATED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

/439/f3d/1141 · .json · Public domain