United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

“ However, we do agree with the New Church's apparent concern that we could not enjoin the use of the scriptures without giving the New Church a meaningful opportunity to file opposing papers and present evidence in a full adversary hearing. Whether this court may grant certain relief, however, is quite a different question from whether we have jurisdiction in the first place to review a TRO that is tantamount to a denial of a preliminary injunction. ”

“ The Church cannot now avoid the consequences of that choice by burdening the district court with a second application for preliminary relief, and this court with a second interlocutory appeal. Where the Church easily could have alleged in its initial application that the scriptures had an economic value, we should hold that it is estopped from appealing the denial of its subsequent application for preliminary relief under California trade secrets law. ”

“ It is well established that a party who created a document under a work-for-hire basis cannot entertain an action for false designation of origin. See Cleary v. News Corp., 30 F.3d 1255, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1994) . In his order dismissing Mayo's counterclaims, Judge Tashima found that “ [t] he prior work-for-hire doctrine ruling effectively foreclosed any rights on Mayo's part to make any claims of authorship or ownership regarding the NOT materials.” This finding forecloses Mayo's false designation of origin counterclaim. ”

“ Rule 37 (b) (2) (C) gives the district court discretion to dismiss a party's claims as a sanction for noncooperation in discovery matters. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37 (b) (2) (C) . Dismissal is warranted only if the party facing sanctions acted in bad faith. Anheuser-Busch, 69 F.3d at 348. The district court must also weigh several other factors before imposing the “harsh sanction of dismissal”:
(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its dockets; (3) the risk of prejudice to the party seeking sanctions ”

“ Religious Technology Center (RTC) , a California corporation, appeals from judgment and imposition of attorneys fees entered against it in two cases it brought against David Mayo (Mayo) and other related defendants. Mayo cross-appeals judgment entered against him on his counterclaims. We affirm the judgment and award of attorneys fees against RTC. We affirm the dismissal of Mayo's emotional distress and false designation of origin counterclaims, but reverse and remand the judgment against Mayo on his remaining counterclaims. ”

“ The master made a succinct statement as to the fees requested, noting that “many attorneys worked many, many hours on this case”; that the hours were reasonable “given the plethora of constitutional issues, discovery stand-offs, appeals, and, most importantly, plaintiffs' practice of endlessly litigating issues”; and that the hourly rates were reasonable for federal civil practice within the Central District of California. The master recommended an award of $2.9 million. ”

“ The record below makes it clear that an evidentiary hearing would have been pointless; in light of the district judge's ruling that Wollersheim barred all interlocutory relief, it would have been a waste of party and judicial resources to have conducted an evidentiary hearing.The New Church argues that Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 433 n. 7, 94 S.Ct. 1113, 1121 n. 7, 39 L.Ed.2d 435 (1974) forecloses our treating this as an appeal from an order denying a preliminary injunction. We disagree. Granny Goose is simply inapposite. ”

“ There the circumstances included “a full adversary hearing,” which presumably means an evidentiary hearing; here the circumstances included a non-evidentiary adversary hearing at which all parties were represented. ”

“ See 1B Moore's Federal Practice ¶ .405 [8] , at 238-42 (2d Ed.1988) . “The policies underlying preclusion of inconsistent positions are ‘general consideration [s] of the orderly administration of justice and regard for the dignity of judicial proceedings.’ ” Arizona v. ”

“ An evidentiary hearing was therefore unnecessary. See Sablan v. Department of Finance of N. Mariana Islands, 856 F.2d 1317, 1322 (9th Cir. 1988) (noting that an evidentiary hearing is not necessary where the “record and supporting affidavits are sufficiently detailed to provide an adequate basis for calculating an award.”) ; D'Emanuele v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 904 F.2d 1379, 1389 (9th Cir. 1990) (same) . FN6. ”

“ Easy Living, Inc., 743 F.2d 1378, 1385 n. 3 (9th Cir. 1984) , this is not such a case. Although the order which Judge Ideman ultimately signed was submitted by the victorious defense attorneys, the Findings of Fact incorporated therein as to the reasonableness of the hours spent and the $2.9 million fee award were made by the Special Master-and not Mayo's attorneys. Thus, Sealy's rule of reversal does not apply.We find RTC's other claims of rubber-stamping equally meritless. ”