
    WATEC AMERICA CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BERGER KAHN, a California limited liability partnership; Craig Aronson, a resident of California, Defendants-Appellees, and Michelle Jalali, a resident of California; Ryan Tuley, a resident of California; Joseph Trojan, d/b/a Trojan Law Offices, a resident of California, and Jessica Slusser, a resident of California, Defendants. Watec America Corporation, a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, v. Myers Dawes Andras and Sherman LLP; Daniel Dawes; Joseph Andras; Vic Lin, Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants, and Mid-Century Insurance Company, a California corporation, Defendant.
    Nos. 06-56339, 06-56722, 06-56736.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted April 7, 2008.
    Filed April 17, 2008.
    Orlando F. Cabanday, Esq., Marina Del Rey, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    
      Allen L. Michel, Esq., Marina Del Rey, CA, for Defendant-Appellee/Defendant.
    R. Joseph Trojan, Esq., Trojan Law Offices, Beverly Hills, CA, for Defendant.
    Before: BEEZER, T.G. NELSON, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff-appellant Watec America Corporation (“Watec America”) appeals the district court’s dismissal of its complaint. Defendant-appellee Myers Dawes Andras and Sherman LLP (“Myers Dawes”) cross-appeals the district court’s denial of its motion for Rule 11 sanctions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in judicially estopping Watec America from pursuing its former lawyers for malpractice. See Hamilton v. State Farm & Cas. Co., 270 F.3d 778, 782 (9th Cir.2001) (Judicial estoppel may be invoked “because of general considerations of the orderly administration of justice and regard for the dignity of judicial proceedings, and to protect against a litigant playing fast and loose with the courts.”) (quotation marks and alterations omitted).

Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in denying Myers Dawes’ motion for Rule 11 sanctions. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. Watec America’s complaint was not frivolous when filed.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     