Lake v. Gates

130 F.4th 1054 (9th Cir. 2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · August 21, 2025 · No. 23-16022

Summary

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a per curiam order denying petitions for panel and en banc rehearing in a case affirming district court sanctions against lead attorneys under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The underlying dispute involved election-related claims challenging the security and tabulation methods of Arizona’s electronic voting systems. In a dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc, Judge VanDyke argued that the sanctions order was based on a misreading of the complaint and improperly sought to chill politically disfavored litigation.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Kim McLane Wardlaw; Ronald M. Gould; Patrick J. Bumatay
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decision date
August 21, 2025
Docket number
23-16022
Procedural posture
Petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc denied; panel affirmed district court sanctions order.
Standard of review
Abuse of discretion
Precedential value
published
Parties
Kari Lake; Mark Finchem; Andrew D. Parker; Kurt B. Olsen v. Bill Gates; Clint Hickman; Jack Sellers; Thomas Galvin; Steve Gallardo; others
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

sanctionsstandingcivil procedureappellate procedureelection law

Practice areas

civil procedureelection law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court erred in imposing Rule 11 sanctions on the lead attorneys
  2. Whether the Ninth Circuit panel erred in affirming the district court’s sanctions order
  3. Whether the standards for sanctions were correctly applied

Holdings

  1. The Ninth Circuit affirmed that the district court did not err in imposing Rule 11 sanctions because the complaint was not baseless and the attorneys conducted a reasonable inquiry.

Key quotations

Rule 11 sanctions don’t apply when the ‘pleader’ has ‘a good faith argument for his or her view of what the law is, or should be.’ (130 F.4th at 1071)
The district court’s sanctions order was premised on the idea that the complaint falsely stated that Arizona voters do not cast paper ballots. But the complaint never said that. (130 F.4th at 1067)

Factual background

Plaintiffs, Kari Lake and Mark Finchem, alleged that Arizona's electronic voting systems were vulnerable to hacking and sought a preliminary injunction to halt their use. The district court dismissed the case for lack of standing and sanctioned the plaintiffs' lead attorneys under Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. §1927.

Procedural history

The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of Article III standing and imposed Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. §1927 sanctions against lead attorneys. The Ninth Circuit panel affirmed the sanctions order. Plaintiffs sought rehearing en banc, which was denied.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…