DJ profiles Judge Owens + appellate sanctions

Today's DJ profiles John Owens "a longtime prosecutor" "known for his politeness and intelligence." The article begins with a story of girl scout cookies involving his former boss Justice Ginsburg and Judge McKeown. Also find out why he's probably happy with the outcome of last night's NBA playoffs game.


"I'm never off the job"-- "That means when he's helping coach a daughter's basketball team or working out at his boxing gym, he has to exhibit judicial restraint. 'If I misbehave at a game, as coaches sometimes do, I'm reflecting poorly on the federal judiciary'" 
-------------------------------------------------
And for today's unpub'd appellate sanctions case from 4/3, click here -- "there was no valid basis for
filing the complaint to begin with, much less the appeal."

Further, plaintiff failed to make any reasoned legal argument in support of his claims, in violation of the California Rules of Court, another ground for awarding sanctions. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.276(a)(2), (4).) Plaintiff did not “[p]rovide a summary of the significant facts limited to matters in the record” (rule 8.204(a)(2)(C)) nor did he include record references (rule 8.204(a)(1)(C)). In addition, he failed to support any of his claims with reasoned legal argument. (Rule 8.204(a)(1)(B).) ... 

In addition to the wholly improper form of the brief, the contents are equally deficient. The brief is confusing and unclear. ...

Sanctions are awarded against plaintiff or against his lawyer or against  both. We remand to the trial court to determine against whom the sanctions are to be awarded and the amount of sanctions.

(4/3 also addresses other trips in court here today.)
 -------------------------------

And now for some splits...

In the "appeal-or-writ" category of question, where does this fall?

"This case presents a threshold issue: By what procedure is a physician to obtain appellate review of a trial court’s affirmance of a decision by the Medical Board of California (the Board) denying the physician’s request to modify the terms of a prior Board decision imposing probationary conditions on the physician’s right to practice medicine?"

A majority of 2/5 answers "writ" in a split decision today here.

For a 9th Cir. split on the timeliness of an appeal, click here.