Zatarain v. Brown et al

Filing 45

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re 38 MOTION for Sanctions and 43 MOTION for Sanctions: For the reasons noted within, the court FINDS, in its discretion, that the motions for sanctions are both GRANTED to this extent: the court IMPOSES SANCTIONS ag ainst the Brown and REQUIRES them to pay the reasonable attorney fees and costs that the Plaintiff incurred as a result of his attorney(s) attending the status conferences on March 27, 2013 and September 18, 2013, at which conferences the Browns fail ed to appear in disregard of court Orders. To the extent that the Plaintiff requested additional sanctions, the court DENIES the motions. The court grants the Plaintiff leave to file on or before November 19, 2013 evidence reflecting the reasonable attorney fees (with time and rates charged) and costs incurred for his counsels attendance at those status conferences. Signed by Judge Karon O Bowdre on 11/5/13. (SAC )

FILED
2013 Nov-05 PM 02:54
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MIDDLE DIVISION
CARLOS ZATARAIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
RICKEY BROWN and SHEILA
BROWN, individually d/b/a TRUCK
FARM SALVAGE and d/b/a RICKEY
BROWN MECHANIC SHOP and
BROWN AUTO SALES, and DANA
DAVIS,
Defendants

]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

CV-11-BE-3508-M

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
This matter comes before the court on the Plaintiff’s “Motions for Sanctions against
Rickey Brown and Sheila Brown” (doc. 38) and the subsequently filed “Motion to Enter
Sanctions against Rickey Brown and Sheila Brown” (doc. 43), asking the court to impose
sanctions requested in the first motion. The court GRANTS the motions in part and DENIES
them in part for the reasons stated in this Memorandum Opinion.
This court has the inherent power to impose sanctions and assess attorney’s fees against
litigants, counsel, and law firms who willfully disobey court orders. See Chambers v. NASCO,
Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 45-46 (1991) (explaining that a court has the power to award attorney’s fees to
a party whose litigation efforts directly benefit others, to sanction the opposing party’s willful
disobedience of a court order). “[D]eeply rooted in the common law tradition is the power of
any court to ‘manage its affairs [which] necessarily includes the authority to impose reasonable
1

and appropriate sanctions upon errant lawyers practicing before it.’” Carlucci v. Piper Aircraft
Corp., 775 F.2d 1440, 1447 (11th Cir. 1985).
In the instant case, the Plaintiff requests the court to impose sanctions against Rickey
Brown and Sheila Brown, who are now proceeding pro se. In the first motion for sanctions, the
Plaintiff requested sanctions as a result of the following conduct by the Browns: (1) the failure of
the Browns to confer with the Plaintiff to prepare and file a JOINT status report by March 20,
2013 as required by the court’s Order dated March 4, 2013 (doc. 23) despite the Plaintiff’s efforts
to contact them to prepare a joint report; (2) the failure of the Browns to appear at the March 27,
2013 status conference as required by the same order, although the Plaintiff’s counsel appeared
for the conference; (3) the failure of the Browns to confer with the Plaintiff to prepare and file a
JOINT status report by June 26, 2013, as required by the court’s Order dated June 20, 2013 (doc.
25), although the Plaintiff’s counsel attempted contact without success and although Sheila
Brown eventually prepared a separate report; (4) the failure of the Browns to confer with the
Plaintiff to prepare and file a JOINT status report by September 11, 2013 as required by the
court’s Revised Scheduling Order dated August 8, 2013 (doc. 33), and despite the Plaintiff’s
contacting them to prepare the joint report; (5) the failure of the Browns to appear at the status
conference on September 18, 2013 as required by the same Revised Scheduling Order, although
the Plaintiff’s counsel appeared at the conference; (6) the failure of the Browns to supplement
discovery; and (7) the failure of the Browns to provide dates they would be available for
depositions.
In response to the motion for sanctions, the court entered an Order to Show Cause,
requiring the Browns to show cause in writing “why the court should not grant the motion for
2

sanctions and impose sanctions, including but not limited to requiring Rickey Brown and Sheila
Brown to pay to the Plaintiff his attorney’s fees and expenses associated with attendance at the
status conferences on March 27, 2013 and September 18, 2013. After the Browns did not
respond to the court’s Order to Show Cause within the time provided, the Plaintiff filed the
second motion for sanctions, noting the Brown’s ignoring of the court’s Show Cause Order. The
Plaintiff requested that the court sanction the Browns by entering a default judgment against
them and by awarding attorney fees to the Plaintiff for his counsel’s attendance of the March 27,
2013 and September 18, 2013 status conferences.
Having listed the repeated failures on the part of the Browns to comply with court orders
and to fully participate in discovery, the court FINDS, in its discretion, that the motions for
sanctions are both due to be GRANTED to this extent: the court IMPOSES SANCTIONS against
the Brown and REQUIRES them to pay the reasonable attorney fees and costs that the Plaintiff
incurred as a result of his attorney(s) attending the status conferences on March 27, 2013 and
September 18, 2013, at which conferences the Browns failed to appear in disregard of court
Orders. To the extent that the Plaintiff requested additional sanctions, the court DENIES the
motions. The court grants the Plaintiff leave to file on or before November 19, 2013 evidence
reflecting the reasonable attorney fees (with time and rates charged) and costs incurred for his
counsel’s attendance at those status conferences.
DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of November, 2013.

____________________________________
KARON OWEN BOWDRE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3