Vedatech Inc. et al v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company et al

Filing 255

ORDER re 251 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion for Reconsideration, Order on Motion to Set Aside, Order on Motion to Set Aside Judgment. Plaintiff ORDERED to pay $10,000 in sanctions. (vrwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MANI SUBRAMANIAN, Plaintiff, v ST PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al, Defendants. / No C 04-1249 VRW ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On October 14, 2008, the court ordered plaintiff Mani Subramanian to show cause why he should not be sanctioned $10,000 for two frivolous filings, Docs ## 233, 234. Doc #251 at 6. In Doc

response, Subramanian filed a "request for clarification." #253.

In his request, Subramanian puts forth three arguments why he should not be sanctioned. Doc #253. First, he argues that

his notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit divests the court of jurisdiction to enter sanctions. Id at 2. He is wrong. The court

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

continues to have jurisdiction over Subramanian in the matter and can enter sanctions. A notice of appeal only transfers

jurisdiction to the appellate court over matters contained in the appeal. Masalosalo by Masalosalo v Stonewall Ins Co, 718 F2d 955, Subramanian filed a limited appeal that did

956 (9th Cir 1983).

not include the order to show cause why he should not be sanctioned. Doc #252. In Masalosalo, the Ninth Circuit held that

a district court can award attorneys' fees for frivolous filings after a notice of appeal has been filed even though the appeal concerned whether dismissal of the underlying filings was proper. 718 F2d at 956. Thus, even though Subramanian's two frivolous

filings are currently noticed for appeal, the court can still impose sanctions for those filings. Second, Subramanian argues that the sanctions are vague or that he was not on notice that he might be sanctioned. He is wrong again. Id at 2.

In June 2005, the court issued a standing order

against Subramanian for any frivolous filings in the amount of $1,000 per page. Doc #163 at 24. The court's leniency in only

ordering $10,000 in sanctions, rather than the maximum amount available under the standing order ($87,000), does not render the sanctions vague. Finally, Subramanian argues that his motions were not frivolous. Doc #253 at 3-4. He is wrong yet again. The Ninth

Circuit affirmed the orders that Subramanian sought to have reconsidered. See St Paul Fire & Marine Ins Co v Vedatech Intern Subramanian's subsequent

Inc, 245 Fed Appx 588 (9th Cir 2007).

post-judgment filings had no basis in law or fact and wasted defendants' time. 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Accordingly, the court ORDERS Subramanian to pay $10,000 in sanctions to defendants no later than February 27, 2009.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

VAUGHN R WALKER United States District Chief Judge

3