In re: ALLANA BARONI v. Green Tree Servicing LLC;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: ALLANA BARONI,
Debtor.
______________________________
RICHARD LAWRENCE ANTOGNINI;
MICHAEL S. RILEY, Esquire,
Appellants,
v.
GREEN TREE SERVICING LLC; et al.,
Appellees.
No. 17-55554
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-07226-PA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Richard Lawrence Antognini and Michael S. Riley, counsel for the chapter 7
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
APR 16 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-55554
debtor, appeal from the district court’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s
imposition of sanctions under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 1291. We review de novo the
district court’s decision on appeal from the bankruptcy court and apply the same
standards of review applied by the district court. Motor Vehicle Cas. Co. v. Thorpe
Insulation Co. (In re Thorpe Insulation Co.), 677 F.3d 869, 879 (9th Cir. 2012).
We review for an abuse of discretion a bankruptcy court’s award of sanctions.
Miller v. Cardinale (In re DeVille), 361 F.3d 539, 547 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by imposing sanctions on
counsel for filing a frivolous motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of
Bankruptcy Procedure 9024. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011(b); Townsend v. Holman
Consulting Corp., 929 F.2d 1358, 1362, 1367 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc) (sanctions
for a motion for reconsideration may appropriately be imposed on the signer of a
paper “if either a) the paper is filed for an improper purpose, or b) the paper is
‘frivolous’”); see also In re DeVille, 361 F.3d at 551-52 (under Rule 9011,
adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard is all the process required).
Contrary to appellants’ contention, Rule 9011(d)’s inapplicability to discovery
does not preclude sanctions for the filing of a motion for reconsideration under

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-55554
Rule 9024.
We reject as unsupported by the record appellants’ contention that the
bankruptcy court did not comply with the requirements of Rule 9011(c)(3).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --