Dissenting Circuit Judge Would Have Affirmed Based On Waiver.
On April 23, 2017, we posted on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 137 S. Ct. 1178 (2017), which found that a $2.7 million “inherent power of the court” sanctions award needed a restudy based on the correct “but for” causation standard albeit indicating that a waiver issue needed upfront adjudication.
The Ninth Circuit, in Haeger v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., No. 12-17718 (9th Cir. June 8, 2017) (published), ruled through a 2-0 majority decision that the district court should revisit the sanctions issue. Circuit Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr., in dissent, found that Goodyear had admitted that only $722,406.52 of the sanctions award was tainted, such that the remaining $2 million award should simply be affirmed rather than involve any further scrutiny by the district court.