Callahan, et al. v. City of Sanger, et al.

Filing 65

ORDER re: Sanctions (Doc. 63): Plaintiffs counsel shall pay sanctions to the Court in the amount of $200 no later than January 22, 2016, and file written proof of payment to the Court. Counsel is cautioned that failure to comply with the Courts order may result in the imposition of additional sanctions. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/5/2016. (Herman, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KEVIN CALLAHAN, et al.,

12
13
14

Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF SANGER,

15

Defendant.

16

) Case No.: 1:14-cv-00600-BAM
)
) ORDER RE: SANCTIONS
)
) (Doc. 63)
)
)
)
)
)

17

This matter is before the Court on an order for Plaintiffs’ counsel to show cause as to why

18

sanctions should not be imposed for the failure to appear at the telephonic status conference and for

19

the failure to appear to expedite the settlement in this matter. (Doc. 63).
BACKGROUND

20
21

On October 29, 2015, the Court issued an order requiring the parties to attend a telephonic

22

status conference on December 15, 2015, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before the undersigned.

23

(Doc. 60).

24

On December 15, 2015, counsel for Defendant City of Sanger appeared telephonically for the

25

status conference. However, Plaintiffs’ counsel, Michael McGill, failed to appear. The telephonic

26

status conference therefore proceeded without necessary input from Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding the

27

status of the settlement agreement. During the course of the conference, the Court was informed that

28

defense counsel had provided a draft settlement agreement to Plaintiffs’ counsel on November 6,
1

1

2015, but Plaintiffs’ counsel had not provided a substantive response. Finding that the failure of

2

Plaintiffs’ counsel to appear at the status conference further contributed to the delayed resolution of

3

this matter, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiffs’ counsel to show cause why sanctions should

4

not imposed for the failure to appear at the telephonic status conference and for the failure to expedite

5

the settlement in this case. The Court directed Plaintiffs’ counsel to respond, in writing, no later than

6

Friday, December 18, 2015. The Court cautioned counsel that failure to respond to the Order to Show

7

Cause may result in the imposition of sanctions. (Doc. 63).

8

On December 21, 2015, Plaintiffs’ counsel, Michael McGill, filed an untimely declaration in

9

response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause. (Doc. 64). According to the declaration, Mr. McGill

10

failed to appear at the telephonic status conference because “[m]inutes prior to the 9:30 a.m.

11

conference call, [his] iPhone ceased working” and he “ended up not being able to use the phone until

12

about 9:30, when it powered on by itself.” (Doc. 64 at ¶ 2). Mr. McGill also indicated that he had

13

sent a revised settlement agreement to opposing counsel the day prior to the status conference. (Doc.

14

64 at ¶ 3). As a final matter, Mr. McGill represented that while drafting his declaration he “noticed”

15

that the response was late. Counsel claims that he saw the Court’s order come in, but did not fully

16

read it and “inadvertently assumed” he would have more time to provide his response. (Doc. 64 at ¶

17

4).

18

LEGAL STANDARD

19

Local Rule 110 of the Eastern District of California provides that “[f]ailure of counsel … to

20

comply … with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all

21

sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. R. 110.

22

A federal court possesses the inherent power to sanction conduct that abuses the judicial process.

23

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44-45 (1991); see also Shead v. Vang, No. 1:09-cv-00006-

24

AWI-SKO-PC, 2012 WL 3861243, at * 1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2012) (federal courts have the inherent

25

authority to sanction conduct abusive of the judicial process). Indeed, a court may impose monetary

26

sanctions for the “willful disobedience of a court order” or “when a party has acted in bad faith,

27

vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.” Id. at 45-46 (internal citations and quotations

28

omitted). To award sanctions under its inherent powers, the court must “specifically find[ ] bad faith
2

1

or conduct tantamount to bad faith. Sanctions are available for a variety of types of willful actions,

2

including recklessness when combined with an additional factor such as frivolousness, harassment, or

3

an improper purpose.” Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 994 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Allen v. County of

4

Lake, No. 14-cv-03934-TEH, 2015 WL 4747440, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2015) (imposing $250

5

monetary sanction against counsel to deter abuses of the judicial process based on counsel’s late

6

filings, including late response to order to show cause).
DISCUSSION

7
8

Having considered Mr. McGill’s untimely response, the Court finds that monetary sanctions

9

are warranted. Mr. McGill’s declaration does not provide a satisfactory or persuasive explanation for

10

either his failure to appear or his failure to file a timely response.

At best, Mr. McGill has

11

demonstrated a patent disregard for the time and resources of both this Court and opposing counsel.

12

Not only does Mr. McGill admit that his phone powered on at 9:30 a.m., which was the time

13

scheduled for the status conference, but also that he could not be bothered to review the entirety of the

14

Court’s show cause order, which clearly set forth the deadline for his response. Indeed, Mr. McGill’s

15

indifference has resulted in a drain on this Court’s limited resources, requiring the expenditure of

16

unnecessary time managing this case. The Court finds Mr. McGill’s reckless, inattentive conduct

17

tantamount to bad faith. Accordingly, in order to deter such conduct and abuses of the judicial

18

process, Plaintiffs’ counsel shall be ordered to pay monetary sanctions to the Court in the amount of

19

$200 no later than January 8, 2016.

20

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

21

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs’ counsel shall pay sanctions to the Court in the

22

amount of $200 no later than January 22, 2016, and file written proof of payment to the Court.

23

Counsel is cautioned that failure to comply with the Court’s order may result in the imposition of

24

additional sanctions.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

January 5, 2016

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28
3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4