Remand Diplomacy
Ever notice how the appellate courts provide "guidance" to the lower courts on remand? You know what I mean, "we take no position" and "while the lower court is free to revisit" and so on. Of course, usually followed by a magnificent qualifier, that says "but" in capital letters. Here's a gem:
Because we are vacating the district court's Rule 11 orders on other legal grounds, we express no opinion at this stage about the particular reasonableness of any fees the district court elected to award Mattel. We do, however, encourage the district court on remand to ensure that the time spent by Mattel's attorneys was reasonably and appropriately spent in relation to both the patent frivolousness of Christian's complaint and the services directly caused by the sanctionable conduct. FN 12
FN 12: For example, because the action was frivolous on its face, why would Mattel's attorneys need to spend 700 hours . . . for the summary judgment motion and response? . . . Mattel's theory was stunningly simple and required little explication . . . Christian v. Mattel, 286 F.3d 1118, 1131-32, FN 12 (9th Cir. 2002).
Don't you love it?! We express no opinion but see our footnote for our actual opinion. And oh, by the way, if you (district court) fail to correctly read our "no opinion" you will be reversed. Again!
Remand diplomacy.
