PRIMUS AUTOMOTIVE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rudolph A. BATARSE, Defendant, Jan C. Nielsen, Appellant

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that bad faith requirement was not met even where lower 21 court found attorney’s conduct “outrageous” and “inexcusable”
• explaining that a finding- of bad faith is critical when a party requests that the Court use its inherent powers to engage in fee-shifting
• emphasizing that “sanctions should be reserved for the ‘rare and exceptional case where the action is clearly frivolous, legally unreasonable or without legal foundation, or brought for an improper purpose’”
• noting that a trial court “has ‘broad fact-finding powers’ with respect to sanctions, and its findings warrant ‘great deference’” (quoting Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 929 F.2d 1358, 1366 (9th Cir. 1990) (en banc))
• noting that a “court’s inherent power to 9 impose attorney[] fees as a sanction [is limited] to cases in which a litigant has engaged in 10 bad-faith conduct or willful disobedience of a court’s orders”
• noting that a “court’s inherent power to impose attorney’s fees as a 6 sanction [is limited] to cases in which a litigant has engaged in bad-faith conduct or willful 7 disobedience of a court’s orders.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).