Havensight Capital LLC v. Nike, Inc., 891 F.3d 1167

Background

Havensight sued Nike in a tortious-interference action shortly after a separate infringement suit by Havensight against Nike was dismissed with prejudice.
Havensight filed an Amended Complaint alleging interference, price-fixing, RICO, negligence, and unfair competition, attaching an affidavit from a retailer.
Nike moved to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6); Havensight responded with repeated procedural filings (motions for default, writ of execution, multiple recusal motions) that the district court found improper.
The district court dismissed the Amended Complaint without leave to amend and imposed Rule 11 sanctions against Havensight’s counsel; separate orders also imposed sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and labeled Havensight a vexatious litigant.
Havensight filed a notice of appeal that explicitly referenced only the dismissal and the Rule 11 sanctions; it later sought to expand the appeal to other orders.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed jurisdiction/timeliness issues and affirmed the Rule 11 sanctions while dismissing the appeal as to other orders for lack of jurisdiction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Havensight timely appealed the dismissal of the Amended Complaint	The post-judgment motion for reconsideration tolled the appeal period making the October notice timely	Judgment was deemed entered 150 days after dismissal; the reconsideration motion was resolved before that entry and did not toll the appeal period	Appeal of dismissal is untimely; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Whether orders not named in the notice of appeal (§1927 sanctions, vexatious-litigant designation, denial of motions) are before the court	Havensight attempted to expand the appeal to include those orders	Appellee contended the notice did not designate those orders; thus they are not properly appealed	Those portions of the appeal are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Whether Rule 11 sanctions were properly imposed	Havensight argued its filings were justified and sanctions were unwarranted	Nike argued filings were frivolous, abusive, and continued despite warnings, justifying sanctions and fee award	District court did not abuse discretion; Rule 11 fee sanction affirmed
Whether premature post-judgment motions alter the appeal timetable under Rule 4/Rule 58	Havensight contended premature post-judgment motion should extend/toll the appeal period	Court relied on ABF Capital and Rule 4/58 interplay: premature motions do not extend the appeal deadline before judgment entry	Premature post-judgment motion did not extend appeal period; appellant gets no tactical advantage

Key Cases Cited

Friedman v. AARP, Inc., 855 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir.) (de novo review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
Kerr v. Jewell, 836 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion standard for denial of reconsideration)
De Dios v. Int’l Realty & Investments, 641 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sanctions)
Ringgold-Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion for characterization as vexatious litigant)
Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Serv. of Chicago, 138 S. Ct. 13 (U.S.) (timeliness and jurisdiction of appeals)
Classic Concepts, Inc. v. Linen Source, Inc., 716 F.3d 1282 (9th Cir.) (appeal timeliness principles)
ABF Capital Corp. v. Osley, 414 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir.) (effect of premature post-judgment motions on appeal deadlines)
Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir.) (Rule 11 sanction scope)
Primus Auto. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Batarse, 115 F.3d 644 (9th Cir.) (district court deference on sanctions factfinding)
Blixseth v. Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLC, 854 F.3d 626 (9th Cir.) (awarding fees related to sanctions proceedings)