- We decide that this appeal is frivolous under the Flaherty standard in light of the clear application of the law of the case doctrine. In attempting to avoid application of this well-established doctrine, Le’s briefing misrepresents the record
- Sanctions are appropriate because Le’s arguments “are not supported by a careful reading of the record or the law nor could these arguments be reasonably characterized as presenting unique issues or arguing for extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.”
- given the clear application of the law of the case doctrine in this instance, we conclude that any reasonable attorney would agree that the appeal is totally and completely without merit
- Le’s briefing as to the substantial evidence claim does not comply with basic principles of appellate procedure.
- Significantly, Le’s substantial evidence argument misrepresents the record and misapplies the standards of appellate review.
- Third, it appears Le and Le’s attorneys filed the present appeal to delay the contempt proceedings against Le.
- the arguments made by Le’s attorney  at oral argument in this appeal reinforce our decision to impose monetary sanctions in this instance.
Tuesday, January 24, 2023
$69k appellate sanctions imposed
unpub'd decision here today: