Miguel Sillas et al v. City of Los Angeles et al

Filing 106

CERTIFICATION OF FACTS AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY LIZETTE MADERA SILLAS SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT by Magistrate Judge Alexander F. MacKinnon. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Lizette Madera Sillas appear before the Honorable Fernando M. Olguin i n Courtroom 6D, Sixth Floor, United States District Court, 350 W. 1st Street, Los Angeles, California, 90012, on Thursday, February 28, 2019, at 10 a.m., to show cause why she should not be adjudged in contempt by reason of the facts certified herein. (See document for details.) (sbou)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

MIGUEL SILLAS, MARIA SILLAS,
and JOSE SILLAS,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

v.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal
corporation; EDGAR MEJIA,
MATTHEW MENDEZ, HAINER
HERNANDEZ, MICHAEL MARINO,
VINCENZO AVERAIMO, ALEX
FRANCO, DANIEL HUGHES, JOSE
TEJEDA, JOHN PADILLA, JEREMY
MASSEY, DANIEL KAMINSKI,
ARSHAVIR SHALDJIAN, RYAN
SCHATZ, PATRICK FOREMAN,
RODOLFO RODRIGUEZ, and DOES
1-10, inclusive,

CASE NO. CV17-08691-FMO (AFMx)
Hon. Fernando M. Olguin
Mag. Judge Alexander F. MacKinnon
Action Filed: December 1, 2017
Trial Date: September 17, 2019
CERTIFICATION OF FACTS
AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
WHY LIZETTE MADERA SILLAS
SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN
CONTEMPT

Defendants.

25
26

Nonparty Lizette Madera Sillas (“Madera Sillas”) has failed to appear for a

27

deposition and failed to appear in Court to address why she should not be held in

28

contempt for her failure to appear for a deposition. As discussed below, the Court

1

certifies the following facts and orders Ms. Madera Sillas to appear before the District

2

Judge to show cause why she should not be adjudged in contempt for failure to

3

comply with a deposition subpoena and associated order. Ms. Madera Sillas is

4

warned that her failure to comply with this Order may result in contempt

5

sanctions including deposition fees, attorney’s fees, and/or her arrest by the

6

United States Marshals Service.

7

STATEMENT OF CERTIFIED FACTS

8
9

Lizette Madera Sillas is the wife of plaintiff Miguel Sillas. (ECF No. 93, Inlow

10

Decl., ¶ 4.) Defendants jointly noticed the deposition of Lizette Madera Sillas for the

11

first time for August 16, 2018. She was personally served with a deposition notice

12

and a subpoena for the deposition. (ECF No. 93, Exhibit B, Inlow Decl., ¶ 5).

13

However, Madera Sillas failed to appear, and a notice of non-appearance was taken.

14

(ECF No. 93, Exhibit C, Inlow Decl., ¶ 6.) On August 16, 2018, plaintiffs’ counsel

15

Diane Bang stated that her firm was representing Madera Sillas. (ECF No. 93, Inlow

16

Decl., ¶ 6.)

17

Defendants duly re-noticed the deposition of Lizette Madera Sillas for

18

September 24, 2018, but she failed to appear for a second time. (ECF No. 93, Exhibit

19

D, Inlow Decl., ¶ 7.) Following this non-appearance, plaintiffs’ counsel wrote an e-

20

mail to defense counsel stating that they were no longer representing Madera Sillas.

21

(ECF No. 93, Exhibit E, Inlow Decl., ¶ 8.)

22

On September 28, 2018, the parties filed a joint stipulation requesting an order

23

compelling Lizette Madera Sillas to appear at her deposition on October 26, 2018.

24

(ECF No. 77.) This Magistrate Judge signed the Order on September 28, 2018. (ECF

25

No. 78.) On October 4, 2018, Lizette Madera Sillas was duly served with the new

26

deposition notice, subpoena and copy of the Court order compelling her deposition

27

for October 26, 2018. (ECF No. 93, Exhibit F, Inlow Decl., ¶ 10.) Despite the Court

28
2

1

order, Madera Sillas again failed to appear for her deposition on October 26, 2018.

2

(ECF No. 93, Exhibit G, Inlow Decl., ¶ 11.)

3

On December 17, 2018, the defendants filed an ex parte application for an

4

Order to Show Cause as to why Madera Sillas should not be held in contempt for her

5

failure to appear for her duly noticed deposition and the court ordered deposition.

6

(ECF No. 93.) Plaintiffs did not oppose the ex parte application. On December 19,

7

2018, the Magistrate Judge ordered Madera Sillas to appear before the Magistrate

8

Judge on January 15, 2019 to show cause why she should not be held in contempt.

9

(ECF No. 94.) Defendants were ordered to serve the notice of the OSC hearing on

10

Madera Sillas. (ECF No. 94.)

11

Defendants deposed Francisca Madera, the mother of Lizette Madera Sillas,

12

on August 16, 2018. During her deposition, Francisca Madera testified that Lizette

13

currently lived with her. Francisca further testified that Lizette had always lived with

14

her parents and she had seen Lizette that morning, August 16, 2018, one of the dates

15

on which Lizette had also been subpoenaed for deposition. (ECF No. 98.)

16

LAPD Officer Ferrato and Detective Lin went to Madera Sillas’ stated address

17

on Isabel Street on December 27, 2018. Her mother, Francisca Madera, answered

18

the door and said she had not seen her daughter since December 24, 2018 and that

19

Lizette did not have a cell phone. The detectives left a copy of the court order and

20

their business card with Francisca Madera. (ECF No. 99.) On December 28, 2018,

21

LAPD Detective Brian Hun found a phone number for Lizette Madera Sillas in an

22

unrelated police report. When he called the number, a female Hispanic answered

23

and said it was the wrong number. (ECF No. 99.) On December 28, 2018,

24

Detectives Lin and Hun went back to the residence on Isabel Street. They again

25

spoke with Francisca Madera who refused to provide them with Lizette’s contact

26

information or reveal her whereabouts. Francisca did tell them that she had given

27

the court order to her daughter Lizette Madera Sillas. (ECF No. 99.)

28
3

1

On January 9, 2019, LAPD Detectives Purcell and Hun again went to the

2

Madera residence on Isabel Street and again spoke with Francisca Madera. Lizette

3

Madera Sillas was not home. Francisca stated she had given a copy of the order to

4

Lizette on Sunday, January 6, 2019, but she did not know if Lizette would appear in

5

court. Detective Hun gave Francisca another copy of the order and reminded her

6

that it was very important for Lizette to appear in court. (ECF No. 99.) Lizette

7

Madera Sillas did not appear in Court on January 15, 2019.

8

DISCUSSION

9
10

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(g), a court “may hold in contempt

11

a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the

12

subpoena or an order related to it.” This is the only authority in the Federal Rules of

13

Civil Procedure for the imposition of sanctions against a nonparty for failure to

14

comply with a subpoena. Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 708 F.2d 492,

15

494 (9th Cir. 1983) (as amended) (discussing previous version of Rule 45). When a

16

party seeks contempt sanctions against a nonparty, the nonparty has a right to notice

17

and an opportunity to be heard. S.E.C. v. Hyatt, 621 F.3d 687, 696-97 (7th Cir. 2010).

18

When an act “constitut[ing] a civil contempt” occurs in a discovery-related

19

proceeding,

20

[T]he magistrate judge shall forthwith certify the facts to a district judge

21

and may serve or cause to be served, upon any person whose behavior

22

is brought into question under this paragraph, an order requiring such

23

person to appear before a district judge upon a day certain to show cause

24

why that person should not be adjudged in contempt by reason of the

25

facts so certified. The district judge shall thereupon hear the evidence as

26

to the act or conduct complained of and, if it is such as to warrant

27

punishment, punish such person in the same manner and to the same

28

extent as for a contempt committed before a district judge.
4

1

28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6); see also Assignment of Duties to Magistrate Judges, C.D. Cal.

2

Gen. Order 05-07 (2005). In certifying the facts under § 636(e), the magistrate

3

judge’s role is to determine whether the moving party can assert sufficient evidence

4

to establish a prima facie case of contempt. See Proctor v. State Gov’t of N.C., 830

5

F.2d 514, 521 (4th Cir. 1987).

6

In the Ninth Circuit, a party alleging that another person should be held in civil

7

contempt must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged contemnor

8

“violated the court order,” “beyond substantial compliance,” “not based on a good

9

faith. and reasonable interpretation of the order.” Labor/Community Strategy Ctr. v.

10

L.A. Cty. Metro. Transp. Auth., 564 F.3d 1115, 1123 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting In re

11

Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir.

12

1993)). Once that prima facie showing is made, the burden shifts to the alleged

13

contemnor to “produce evidence explaining [her] noncompliance.” United States v.

14

Ayres, 166 F.3d 991, 994 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Chairs v. Burgess, 143 F.3d 1432,

15

1436 (11th Cir. 1998)). In making a contempt determination, a court may consider

16

“the witness’[s] history of non-compliance and the extent to which the witness failed

17

to comply during the pendency of the motion for contempt.” Martinez v. City of

18

Avondale, 2013 WL 5705291, at *4 (D. Ariz. Oct. 18, 2013).

19

A nonparty’s noncompliance with a subpoena may warrant contempt

20

sanctions. Pennwalt Corp., 708 F.2d at 494 n.5; LHF Productions, Inc. v. Doe, 2016

21

WL 6208269, at *2 (D. Or., Oct. 21, 2016). Such sanctions may include the cost of

22

the failed deposition and show-cause motion. LHF Productions, 2016 WL 6208269,

23

at *2-3. Upon a finding of a willful failure to comply with a court order, a contemnor

24

may be jailed until compliance with the district court's order. S.E.C. v. Elmas Trading

25

Corp., 824 F.2d 732 (9th Cir. 1987) (“When the petitioners carry ‘the keys of their

26

prison in their own pockets,’ the action is ‘essentially a civil remedy.’”) (quoting

27

Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 368 (1965)); Martinez, 2013 WL 5705291,

28

at *4. A civil contempt order must be accompanied by a “purge” condition, meaning
5

1

that it must give the contemnor an opportunity to comply with the order before

2

payment of the fine or other sanction becomes due. Koninklijke Philips Elec. N.V. v.

3

KXD Technology, Inc., 539 F.3d 1039, 1042-43 (9th Cir. 2008); Martinez v. City of

4

Pittsburg, 2012 WL 699462, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2012); see also Shell Offshore

5

Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 815 F.3d 623, 629 (9th Cir. 2016) (“the ability to purge is

6

perhaps the most definitive characteristic of coercive civil contempt”).

7

Here, Defendants have shown by clear and convincing evidence that Madera

8

Sillas failed to comply with two deposition subpoenas, the Magistrate Judge’s later

9

order to appear for her deposition, and the Magistrate Judge’s order for a show cause

10

hearing. Madera Sillas was personally served with the first deposition notice and

11

subpoena, but she nevertheless failed to appear for the deposition or otherwise

12

respond to the notice and subpoena. Madera Sillas’ attorney was duly served with

13

the second deposition notice and subpoena, but Madera Sillas again failed to appear.

14

Madera Sillas was also personally served with the Court’s September 28, 2018, order

15

compelling her to appear for her deposition, but she did not comply. Finally, the

16

evidence strongly indicates that Madera Sillas was given notice of the hearing and

17

order to show cause, but she failed to appear for the January 15, 2019 hearing. For

18

these reasons, the undersigned certifies the facts stated above.

19
20

ORDER

21

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Lizette Madera Sillas appear before

22

the Honorable Fernando M. Olguin in Courtroom 6D, Sixth Floor, United States

23

District Court, 350 W. 1st Street, Los Angeles, California, 90012, on Thursday,

24

February 28, 2019, at 10 a.m., to show cause why she should not be adjudged in

25

contempt by reason of the facts certified herein. Should Ms. Madera Sillas arrange

26

with either of Defendants’ counsel (Laura E. Inlow of Collinson, Daehnke, Inlow &

27

Greco, 21515 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 800, Torrance, CA 90503; 424-212-7777;

28

[e-mail] or Lisa Lee, Deputy City Attorney, 200 N. Main Street,
6

1

6th Fl., City Hall East, Los Angeles, CA 90012; 213-978-7032; [e-mail])

2

to have her deposition taken before February 28, 2019, the parties shall notify the

3

Court immediately, the February 28, 2019 hearing will be vacated, and Ms. Madera

4

Sillas will not need appear.

5

Lizette Madera Sillas is again warned that her failure to comply with this

6

Order may result in contempt sanctions including deposition fees, attorney’s

7

fees, and/or her arrest by the United States Marshals Service. Defendant City of

8

Los Angeles is directed to personally serve a signed copy of this Order on Lizette

9

Madera Sillas as soon as practicable at 2020 Isabel Street, Los Angeles, California

10

90065, or at any other address where she may be located. Defendant City of

11

Los Angeles shall promptly file a return of service upon service of this Order.

12
13

DATED: 1/29/2019

14
15
16

____________________________________
ALEXANDER F. MacKINNON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7