Hanford Executive Management Employee Association et al v. City of Hanford et al

Filing 58

ORDER RE: 47 Motion for Sanctions signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 04/25/2012. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

HANFORD EXECUTIVE
MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEE
ASSOCIATION, CATHY CAIN, LOUIS
CAMARA, GEORGE THOMAS DIBBLE,
TIMOTHY IERONIMO, MARY ROSE
LINDSAY, CARLOS MESTAS,
SCOTT YEAGER,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
CITY OF HANFORD, HILARY STRAUS, )
DAN CHIN, SUE SORENSEN, JIM
)
IRWIN, LOU MARTINEZ,
)
JOLEEN JAMESON,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

1:11-cv-00828-AWI-DLB
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS
(Docs. 47-49)

21
22

The Court refers the parties to the orders issued November 17, 2011 (Hanford Executive

23

Management Association v. City of Hanford, slip copy, 2011 WL 5825691 (E.D.Cal. 2011)) and

24

February 22, 2012 (Hanford Executive Management Association v. City of Hanford, slip copy, 2012

25

WL 603222 (E.D.Cal. 2012)) for a complete chronology of the proceedings.

26

On May 19, 2011, plaintiffs Hanford Executive Management Employee Association, Cathy

27

Cain, Louis Camara, George Thomas Dibble, Timothy Ieronimo, Mary Rose Lindsay, Carlos Mestas

28

and Scott Yeager (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs”) filed their complaint for damages and

1

injunctive relief against defendants City of Hanford, Hilary Straus, Dan Chin, Sue Sorensen, Jim

2

Irwin, Lou Martinez and Joleen Jameson (hereinafter referred to as “Defendants”).

3

On June 14, 2011, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject

4

matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)

5

and 12(b)(6), respectively. On July 9, 2011, while Defendants’ motion to dismiss was pending,

6

Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.

7

On November 17, 2011, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss

8

the complaint and denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

9

On December 15, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration and/or motion to alter

10

or amend judgment in response to the Court’s November 17, 2011 order. On February 22, 2012, the

11

Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.

12

On March 16, 2012, Defendants filed a motion for sanctions, contending Plaintiffs’ motion

13

for reconsideration violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. On April 16, 2012, Plaintiffs filed

14

their opposition to Defendants’ motion. On April 23, 2012, Defendants filed their reply to Plaintiffs’

15

opposition.

16

Having reviewed the pleadings of record and all competent and admissible evidence

17

submitted by the parties, the Court finds no Rule 11 violation occurred. Accordingly, Defendants’

18

motion for sanctions is DENIED. The Court reserves jurisdiction over an award of attorneys’ fees

19

and costs incurred in connection with the motion as requested by Plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 11(c)(2)

20

pending further order of the Court or trial of the action.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated:
0m8i78

April 25, 2012
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28

2