Layman v. Combs
| Decision Date | 12 May 1993 |
| Docket Number | 16674,16658,16688,16646,16667,16726,16675,16680,16644,16670,16642,16623,16657,16665,Nos. 89-16621,16647,16684,16641,16650,16660,16696,16648,16698,16651,16622,16686,16666,16690,16692,s. 89-16621 |
| Citation | 994 F.2d 1344 |
| Parties | George E. LAYMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Brownell COMBS, II, et al., Defendants. Frank L. BRYANT, Counter-claimant-Appellant, v. George E. LAYMAN and George E. Layman, Jr., d/b/a Forest Acres Partnership, a Washington general partnership; Barry K. Schwartz and Calvin Klein d/b/a Barry K. Schwartz Partnership; Earl H. Schultz; and Kenneth Franzhein, II, Counter-claim-defendants-Appellees. George E. LAYMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Brownell COMBS, II, et al., Defendants. BATEMAN EICHLER, HILL RICHARDS, INC., and Robert J. McGuiness, Counter-claimants-Appellants, v. George E. LAYMAN and George E. Layman, Jr., d/b/a Forest Acres Partnership, a Washington general partnership; Barry K. Schwartz and Calvin Klein d/b/a Barry K. Schwartz Partnership; Earl H. Schultz; and Kenneth Franzhein, II, Counter-claim-defendants-Appellees. George E. LAYMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Brownell COMBS, II, et al., Defendants. Charles R. HEMBREE; Kincaid, Wilson, Schaeffer and Hembree, P.S.C., Counter-claimants-Appellants, v. George E. LAYMAN and George E. Layman, Jr., d/b/a Forest Acres Partnership, a Washington general partnership; Barry K. Schwartz and Calvin Klein d/b/a Barry K. Schwartz Partnership; Earl H. Schultz; and Kenneth Franzhein, II, Counter-claim-defendants-Appellees. H. James GRIGGS, Plaintiff, v. Brownell COMBS, II, et al., Defendants. BATEMAN EICHLER, HILL RICHARDS, INC., and Robert J. McGuiness, Counter-claimants-Appellants, v. H. James GRIGGS, Counter-claim-defendant-Appellee. H. James GRIGGS, Plaintiff, v. Brownell COMBS, II, et al., Defendants. Charles R. HEMBREE; Kincaid, Wilson, Schaeffer and Hembree, P.S.C., Counter-claimants-Appellants, v. H. James GRIGGS, Counter-claim-defendant-Appellee. Zenya YOSHIDA d/b/a Shadai Farm, Plaintiff, v. Brownell COMBS, II, et al., Defendants. Frank L. BRYANT, Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellant, v. Zenya YOSHIDA d/b/a Shadai Farm, Counter-claim-defendant-Appellee. Zenya YOSHIDA d/b/a Shadai Farm, Plaintiff, v. Brownell COMBS, II, et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
James E. Burns, Jr., Kevin P. Muck, Suzanne D. Kay, Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, San Francisco, CA, for defendants-counter-claimants-appellants Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc. and Robert J. McGuiness.
Thomas K. Bourke, Donald J. Kula, Riordan & McKinzie, Los Angeles, CA, for defendant-counter-claimant-appellant Frank L. Bryant.
M. Laurence Popofsky, Michael L. Rugen, Richard DeNatale, Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe, San Francisco, CA, for defendants-counter-claimants-appellants Charles R. Hembree and Kincaid, Wilson, Schaeffer & Hembree, P.S.C.
John I. Alioto, Michael J. Bettinger, Alioto & Alioto, San Francisco, CA, for plaintiffs-counter-claim-defendants-appellees George E. Layman and George E. Layman, Jr. d/b/a Forest Acres Partnership, Barry K. Schwartz and Calvin Klein d/b/a Barry K Richard M. Trautwein, Susan L. Williams, Alagia, Day, Marshall, Mintmire & Chauvin, Louisville, KY, for plaintiff-counter-claim-defendant-appellee Blas R. Casares.
Schwartz Partnership, Earl H. Schultz, Kenneth Franzhein, II, H. James Griggs, Zenya Yoshida d/b/a Shadai Farm, Robert D. Stratmore, Richard L. Schultz, John F. McGonigle and Virginia M. McGonigle.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Before CANBY and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges, and CARROLL, * District Judge.
Certain defendants in McGonigle v. Combs, 968 F.2d 810 (9th Cir.1992), appeal the district court's summary judgment rejecting their counterclaim for attorneys' fees. 1 The counterclaim alleged that the defendants were entitled to recover their fees because the plaintiffs' breaches of certain warranties triggered an indemnification clause to which plaintiffs had agreed. In addition, defendant Frank Bryant appeals the district court's denial of his requests for attorneys' fees under Section 11(e) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77k(e) (1988), Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 37(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We reverse and remand the district court's denial of Bryant's request for attorneys' fees under Section 11(e), and we affirm the district court's rejection of the remaining claims.
ENTITLES THEM TO ATTORNEYS' FEES
This counterclaim is one of many components of a complex securities litigation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc.
...F.Supp. 1482, 1491.) We review the trial court's decision awarding fees under section 11(e) for abuse of discretion. (Layman v. Combs (9th Cir.1992) 994 F.2d 1344,1353.) Plaintiff argues that his section 11 claim.was not frivolous because he had a "reasonable basis" for arguing that "just b......
-
Lennar Homes of Cal., Inc. v. Stephens
...any showing of probability of success on the merits. The trial court found the analysis of the Ninth Circuit in Layman v. Combs (9th Cir.1992) 994 F.2d 1344 (Layman ), to be “persuasive.” We disagree with defendants' assertion that the indemnity clause at issue here is “nearly identical” to......
-
Lennar Homes of Cal., Inc. v. Stephens
...any showing of probability of success on the merits. The trial court found the analysis of the Ninth Circuit in Layman v. Combs (9th Cir.1992) 994 F.2d 1344 (Layman ), to be “persuasive.” We disagree with defendants' assertion that the indemnity clause at issue here is “nearly identical” to......
-
Aizuss v. Commonwealth Equity Trust
...("The `without merit' standard ... encompasses claims and defenses that ... border on the frivolous."); see also Layman v. Combs, 994 F.2d 1344, 1353 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 303, 126 L.Ed.2d 251 Many of the allegations of federal securities violations in the fi......