How cited: Hohu v. Hatch · Go Syfert

Hohu v. Hatch (2013)

green · 4 citation events across 3 courts. Showing the 3 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Rule Authority · N.D. Cal.
Washeleski has not submitted any evidence that he complied with Rule 11’s safe 10 harbor provision, which “precludes an award of Rule 11 sanctions.” Winterrowd, 556 F.3d at 826 ; 11 see also Hohu v. Hatch, 940 F. Supp. 2d 1161, 1176-78 (N.D.
green Gatlin v. Johnson (2025)
Rule Authority · Bankr. C.D. Cal.
The party seeking to assert collateral estoppel has the burden of 14 proof and “must introduce a record sufficient to reveal the controlling facts and pinpoint 15 the exact issues litigated in the prior action.” Baldwin v. Kilpatrick (In re Baldwin), 245 16 B.R. 131 , 134 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2000). “‘The party asserting collateral estoppel must . . . 17 show that the estopped issue is identical to an issue litigated in a previous action.’” 18 Hohu v. Hatch, 940 F. Supp. 2d 1161
green Burns v. Thuney (2023)
Cited · D. Or. · signal: see
See Hohu v. Hatch, 940 F. Supp. 2d 1161, 1170-73 (N.D.
discussing cases, although concluding that until the Ninth Circuit directly addresses the question the court would apply preclusion to the unappealable remand order