Smith v. Allison et al
Filing
168
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why the Action Should Not Be Dismissed With Prejudice Because of Plaintiff's Sexual Harassment of Defense Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 2/17/2016. Show Cause Response due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
LAWRENCE CHRISTOPHER SMITH,
Case No. 1:10-cv-01814-LJO-JLT (PC)
11
Plaintiff,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE BECAUSE OF PLAINTIFF'S
SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF DEFENSE
COUNSEL
Defendants.
(Doc. 167)
12
v.
13
ALLISON, et al.,
14
15
30-DAY DEADLINE
16
17
On February 16, 2016, defense counsel filed a motion seeking court intervention directing
18
Plaintiff, Lawrence Christopher Smith, to cease his inappropriate and sexually harassing conduct
19
towards her. (Doc. 167.) Defense counsel submits evidence in support of the motion that
20
Plaintiff has directed harassing remarks with sexual overtones toward Defendants’ counsel
21
multiple times in this litigation. He first attempted to denigrate counsel’s meet-and-confer efforts
22
concerning his unjustified refusal to appear at his own deposition, declaring “someone has
23
unleashed quite a[] whoop ass kitty upon me.” (Ganson Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. A.) He then offered to
24
cooperate during discovery if counsel would wear thigh-high boots during their next encounter.
25
Federal courts have the inherent authority to sanction litigation abuses for vindication of
26
judicial authority. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43-46, 111 S.Ct. 2123 (1991); see
27
also Evon v. Law Offices of Sidney Mickell, 688 F.3d 1015, 1035 (9th Cir. 2012). Because of
28
their very potency, inherent powers must be exercised with restraint and discretion. Chambers,
1
1
501 U.S. at 44 (quotation marks omitted). However, sanctions are available for willful actions,
2
“including recklessness when combined with an additional factor such as frivolousness,
3
harassment, or an improper purpose.” Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 993–94 (9th Cir. 2001)
4
(requiring inherent-authority sanctions to be supported by a specific finding of bad faith or
5
conduct tantamount to bad faith); F.J. Hanshaw Enters., Inc. v. Emerald River Dev. Inc., 244 F.3d
6
1128, 1136 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that a district court’s findings in a sanctions case are “given
7
great deference.”)
8
9
As correctly stated by defense counsel, sexually inappropriate remarks need not rise to the
level of severe or pervasive before courts can intervene. Claypole, 2016 WL 145557, at *4
10
(sanctioning attorney, in part, for stating to opposing counsel; “Don’t raise your voice at me. It’s
11
not becoming of a woman.”) By acknowledging and not trivializing the effects of sexual
12
harassment on women, courts can work toward ensuring that no person will have to “run a
13
gauntlet of sexual abuse in return for the privilege of being allowed to work and make a living.”
14
Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d 872, 879-80 (9th Cir. 1991).
This Court may choose any appropriate sanction “that will punish the past misconduct and
15
16
prevent future misconduct.” Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1065 n.8 (9th
17
Cir. 2007). “[A]n assessment of attorney’s fees is undoubtedly within a court’s inherent powers.”
18
Chambers, 501 U.S. at 45. Courts also have the inherent power to dismiss an action “when a
19
party has . . . engaged in conduct utterly inconsistent with the orderly administration of justice.”
20
Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Natural Beverage Distribs., 69 F.3d 337, 348 (9th Cir. 1991) (employing
21
five-factor test); Halaco Eng’g Co. v. Costle, 843 F.2d 376, 380 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding that
22
inherent-powers dismissals are justified in extreme cases and in response to abusive litigation
23
practices).
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
2
1
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within 30 days of the date of service
2
of this order why sanctions, up to and including dismiss the action, should not be imposed
3
because of his inappropriate and sexually harassing conduct.
4
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
February 17, 2016
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?