U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1994

Kano v. National Consumer Cooperative Bank

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided April 18, 1994 · Nelson, Poole, Wiggins

22 F.3d 899 (Federal Reporter, Third Series)

Counsel

Riccio M. Tanaka, Honolulu, HI, for plaintiffs-appellants., James N. Duca, Shelby Ann Floyd, Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing, Honolulu, HI, Frank Torres, pro se, for defendants-appellees.

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Kernan v. Comm'r (United States Tax Court 2014)
O'Brien v. Microsoft Corporation (District Court, W.D. Washington 2020)
Alpert v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC (District Court, W.D. Washington 2017)
David B. Lowry v. Jo Anne Barnhart, in Her Capacity as Commissioner of the Social Security Administration Dan Hyatt Riley Atkins Bennett Engelman (9th Cir. 2003)
Vandeventer v. Wabash National Corp. (District Court, N.D. Indiana 1995)
Philip A. DeMassa, APC v. Butler (In re MacIntyre) (United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of The Ninth Circuit 1995)
Kano v. National Consumer Cooperative Bank (3d Cir. 1994)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

ORDER

The opening brief filed on behalf of appellant violated Fed.RApp.P. 32(a) in that the lines were not double-spaced, but were spaced only one-and-one half spaces apart. Furthermore, the footnotes were of a typeface much smaller than that permitted by the rule, and contained approximately eight lines per inch as opposed to six lines per inch in a normal single-spaced format. We estimate that the opening brief was the equivalent of at least sixty-five pages in length, far exceeding the fifty-page limit.

Counsel for appellant took full responsibility for the form of the brief. However, it is apparent from the reply brief filed by counsel that he knows what the spacing requirements are, even though the footnotes in the reply brief also do not comply with Rule 32. Consequently, we impose sanctions against counsel for the appellant in the amount of $1,500. See Adriana Intern. Corp. v. Thoeren, 913 F.2d 1406, 1417 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1109, 111 S.Ct. 1019, 112 L.Ed.2d 1100 (1991) (imposing sanctions for failure to comply with Fed.RApp.P. 32(a)); *900see also 28 U.S.C. 1927 (authorizing sanctions for failure to comply with rules governing form of briefs). The court acknowledges payment of the sanction.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.