Filed: Jun. 27, 2013
Latest Update: Jun. 27, 2013
Summary: ORDER The court has considered the "amici curiae" letters submitted in support of this petition for writ of mandamus. Petitioner has not demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of this court by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See Bauman v. United States Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977). Indeed, we find the petition to be frivolous and wholly without merit. Accordingly, the petition, including the request for an immediate stay of district court proceedi
Summary: ORDER The court has considered the "amici curiae" letters submitted in support of this petition for writ of mandamus. Petitioner has not demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of this court by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See Bauman v. United States Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977). Indeed, we find the petition to be frivolous and wholly without merit. Accordingly, the petition, including the request for an immediate stay of district court proceedin..
More
ORDER
The court has considered the "amici curiae" letters submitted in support of this petition for writ of mandamus.
Petitioner has not demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of this court by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See Bauman v. United States Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977). Indeed, we find the petition to be frivolous and wholly without merit. Accordingly, the petition, including the request for an immediate stay of district court proceedings, is denied.
Within 21 days after the date of this order, counsel Julie A. Dunne, Lara K. Strauss, and Joshua D. Levine of Littler Mendelson P.C. shall show cause in writing why monetary sanctions should not be imposed against counsel individually for filing a frivolous petition for writ of mandamus. See 9th Cir. R. 46-2(d), (i); 9th Cir. Gen. Ord. 12.9(a); see also 9th Cir. R. 46-2 advisory committee's note (8) (court may impose monetary sanctions under inherent powers of the court); Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 45-51, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991).
Counsel's failure to file a timely response to this order will result in the imposition of sanctions without further notice.
Counsel's response to the order to show cause is referred to the Appellate Commissioner, who shall conduct whatever proceedings he deems appropriate and shall have authority to enter an order, including an order imposing monetary sanctions.
DENIED.
