Jun-En Enterprise, a Taiwan corporation; AGAPE INDUSTRY CO., LTD, a Taiwan corporation v. Peter K. Lin; Agape Industrial, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUN-EN ENTERPRISE, a Taiwan
corporation; AGAPE INDUSTRY CO.,
LTD, a Taiwan corporation,
Plaintiffs-counter-defendants,
and
SHI RU YANG; SHIU-YING LU,
Third-party-defendants,
and
RUSSELL JAMES COLE,
Appellant,
v.
PETER K. LIN; AGAPE INDUSTRIAL,
INC.,
Defendants-counter-claimants
- Appellees.
No. 14-56613
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-02734-PSG-SS
MEMORANDUM*
JUN-EN ENTERPRISE, a Taiwan
corporation; AGAPE INDUSTRY CO.,
LTD, a Taiwan corporation,
No. 14-56621
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-02734-PSG-SS
FILED
JUN 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

Plaintiffs-counter-defendants,
and
SHI RU YANG; SHIU-YING LU,
Third-party-defendants,
and
HOW GUIN ROBERT FONG,
Appellant,
v.
PETER K. LIN; AGAPE INDUSTRIAL,
INC.,
Defendants-counter-claimants
- Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 9, 2016
Pasadena, California
Before: GOULD and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI,** Judge.
Russell James Cole (“Cole”) and How Guin Robert Fong (“Fong”) appeal
the district court’s orders imposing sanctions and attorneys’ fees pursuant to
** The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge for the United States Court of
International Trade, sitting by designation.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (“Rule 11”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Cooter & Gell v.
Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 409 (1990).
The district court properly held that Cole and Fong failed to conduct “an
inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b), before filing
pleadings asserting time-barred claims for breach of an oral contract and tortious
interference with prospective economic advantage. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §
339(1) (two-year statute of limitations). Cole and Fong, however, made
nonfrivolous arguments that a breach of fiduciary duty claim may have reasonably
been timely. See id. §§ 338 (three-year statute of limitations), 343 (four-year
statute of limitations). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of Rule 11
sanctions for the breach of contract and tortious interference claims, but vacate
with respect to the breach of fiduciary duty claim. We remand to the district court
to reconsider the amount of sanctions and to recalculate the attorneys’ fees award,
as appropriate.
AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --