Fatima Rita Dos Santos Fahmy v. Stephen Grahm Hogge et al

Filing 48

MINUTES: (In Chambers) Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Lift Sanction imposed on August 13, 2008 35 IT IS SO ORDERED by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. (ir)

Download PDF
O UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. Title CV 08-1152 PSG (SHx) Date October 7, 2008 Fatima R. Dos Santos Fahmy v. Stephen Graham Hogge Present: The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge Not Present Court Reporter n/a Tape No. Wendy K. Hernandez Deputy Clerk Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s): Not Present Proceedings: Attorneys Present for Defendant(s): Not Present (In Chambers) Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Lift Sanction Pending before this Court is Defendant's "Motion to Lift Sanction." The Court finds the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local R. 7-15. After considering the moving papers, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant's Motion. I. Introduction Plaintiff Fatima R. Dos Santos Fahmy filed a complaint against pro se Defendant Stephen Graham Hogge on February 20, 2008, alleging defamation, invasion of privacy, and a number of other torts. On May 14, 2008, the Court ordered Defendant to redact or file under seal any and all future filings which contained personal identifiers of any individual, in compliance with Local Rule 79-5.4 and General Order No. 07-08. The Court warned Defendant that any future failure to comply with the Court's order would subject him to disciplinary action, including the imposition of monetary sanctions and/or striking of his pleadings. On June 30, 2008, Defendant filed a "Second Motion to Quash Summons and Dismiss Based on Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, Invalid Service of Process, and Forum Non Conveniens." In express violation of the Court's May 14 order, Defendant attached to his motion at least two exhibits displaying personal data identifiers of Plaintiff. The Court found that Defendant had acted in bad faith by violating the Court's order and publicizing Plaintiff's personal information. Accordingly, the Court imposed sanctions on Defendant in the amount of $100.00. Defendant was ordered to submit payment to the Clerk of the Court within five days of the August 13, 2008 order. CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 2 O UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. Title CV 08-1152 PSG (SHx) Date October 7, 2008 Fatima R. Dos Santos Fahmy v. Stephen Graham Hogge On August 25, Defendant filed the present "Motion to Lift Sanction." The Court will treat the motion as one for reconsideration of the imposition of sanctions. II. Legal Standard Reconsideration is appropriate if: (1) the party seeking reconsideration presents the court with newly-discovered evidence; (2) the court committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). III. Discussion Defendant does not dispute that he deserved the $100.00 fine. Furthermore, Defendant does not argue that the Court's decision to impose sanctions was "manifestly unjust" or that new circumstances or law warrant reconsideration. Instead, he maintains that paying the fine may be deemed consent to personal jurisdiction, which he contests.1 Plaintiff does not cite a single case to support his motion, and the Court has been unable to find any case law supporting Plaintiff's argument through its own research. Because Defendant has failed to set forth any grounds supporting reconsideration, the motion is DENIED. IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion to lift the sanction imposed on August 13, 2008, is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Defendant also states that he has donated $100.00 to charity to show that he brought this motion in "good faith." 1 CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 2 of 2