Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

Case 2:O3—cv—OO249-JAT D0cument177-2 Filed O9/24/2007 Page10f3

Nor son rusucnriow SEP *4 2°°7
cAra~iv A. cxmenson ctenx
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U-S· COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONALD DIBLE; MEGAN DIBLE, ) No. 06~l 5508
husband and wife, )
)
Plaintifi`s-—Appellants, ) D.C. No. CV—03——00249—JAT
J
v. )
) MEMORANDUM"
CITY OF CHANDLER, a )
municipality inthe State of Arizona; ) .
CHANDLER POLICE )
DEPARTMENT, a law enforcement )
agency ofthe City of Chandler; )
BOBBY JOE HARRIS, Chandler )
Poiiee Chief and husband; JUDY )
HARRIS, wife, )
)
Defendants—Appellees. )
)
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teiiborg, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June I1, 2007
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, CANBY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit
Judges.
2 °°°This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
: except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
E Case 2:O3—cv—OO249-JAT Document 177-2 Filed O9/24/2007 P@§m%p§,3E Li mg?

Ronald and Megan Dible appeal the district court’s award of attorneys fees l
against them. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
_ (1) Under Arizona law, attorneys fees may be awarded to a successful
party in a breach of contract action] and the district court did not abuse its
discretion; when it awarded them against the Dibles on their almost frivolous
breach of contract claim. We affirm the 84,705.07 award.]
(2) The district court did abuse its discretion“ when it imposed sanctions
upon the Dibles pursuant to Rule 1 i of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule
11 does not provide for the imposition of sanctions upon the clients for the sins of U
their attorney, and no motion for the imposition of sanctions upon the Dibles was .
made. Moreover, the district court made no findings that would support an award
against them. Thus, the imposition of $10,904.22 of sanctions against them must
be reversed. l
AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.
‘Ari2. Rev. Stat. § 12-—341.01(A).
2Velarde v. PACE Membership Warehouse, Inc., 105 F.3d 1313, 1318 (9th
Cir. 1997).
3'The Dibies did not appeal the award on their copyright claim. Therefore,
that $681.02 award stands.
“‘Buster v. Greisen, 104 F.3d 1186, 1189 (9th Cir. 1997).
2
Case 2:O3—cv—OO249-JAT Document 177-2 Filed O9/24/2007 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-00249-JAT

Document 177-2

Filed 09/24/2007

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-00249-JAT

Document 177-2

Filed 09/24/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-00249-JAT

Document 177-2

Filed 09/24/2007

Page 3 of 3