Mubiru v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Filing 20

ORDER REQUIRING FRANK K MUBIRU TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY MONETARY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FRIVOLOUS FILINGS, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 03/28/2024. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within seven (7) days of entry of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing as to why monetary sanctions should not be imposed for his frivolous filings requesting entry of default. (Nguyen, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
FRANK K MUBIRU,

11

Case No. 1:23-cv-01597-SAB

Plaintiff,

12

ORDER REQUIRING FRANK K MUBIRU
TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY
MONETARY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT
BE IMPOSED FOR FRIVOLOUS FILINGS

v.

13

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

14

SEVEN DAY DEADLINE
Defendant.

15
16
17

I.

18

BACKGROUND

19

Plaintiff Frank K. Mubiru, proceeding pro se and having paid the filing fee, filed this

20

action on November 13, 2023, against Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (ECF No. 1.) On

21

February 20, 2024, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to file a status report, given

22

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this Court’s order requiring prompt filing of proof of service

23

of the summons and complaint. (ECF Nos. 3, 4.) On February 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed proof of

24

service of the summons and complaint on Defendant. (ECF No. 6.)
On February 27, 2024, Defendant filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint including proof

25

of service.1 (ECF Nos. 8, 9.)

26
27
28

On March 18, 2024, the Court noted Defendant made a clerical error in Defendant’s mailing address and ordered
Defendant promptly re-serve its answer no later than March 21, 2024. (ECF Nos. 13, 15.) On March 20, 2024,
Defendant timely filed proof of service of its answer on Plaintiff’s correct address. (ECF No. 17.)
1

1

1

On March 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for entry of default. (ECF No. 10.) On March

2

11, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request for entry of default because Defendant filed an

3

answer to the complaint on February 27, 2024, and is defending this action. (ECF No. 11.)

4

On March 15, 2024, four days after this Court issued an order informing Plaintiff that

5

Defendant had answered the complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion to continue the scheduling

6

conference because (1) Defendant did not serve an answer to the complaint on the Plaintiff and

7

(2) there was a pending motion requesting entry of default. (ECF No. 12.) The Court again

8

notified Plaintiff that Defendant had filed its answer in this action on February 27, 2024 and

9

reiterated Plaintiff was not entitled to entry of default. (ECF No. 13 at 2-3.) In that order, the

10

Court reminded Plaintiff that “he must be familiar with the orders issued by this Court when

11

litigating his action.” (Id. at 3.) In an abundance of caution, the Court granted Plaintiff’s

12

request and continued the scheduling conference to April 25, 2024 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 9.

13

On March 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed a renewed motion requesting entry of default. (ECF

14

No. 19.) In his renewed motion for entry of default judgment, Plaintiff acknowledges he is in

15

receipt of Defendant’s answer. (ECF No. 19 at 2.)

16

II.

17

LEGAL STANDARD

18

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the underlying purpose of the rules is to

19 “secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination” of an action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. To
20 effectuate this purpose, the rules provide for sanctions against parties that fail to comply with court
21 orders or that unnecessarily multiply the proceedings. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f); Fed. R. Civ.
22 P. 37(b). The Court also possesses inherent authority to impose sanctions to manage its own
23 affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. Chambers v. NASCO,
24 Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991). The Court’s inherent power is that which is necessary to the exercise
25 of all others, including to protect the due and orderly administration of justice and maintain the
26 authority and dignity of the Court. Roadway Exp., Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 764 (1980).
27

The Local Rules of the Eastern District of California provide that “[f]ailure of counsel or

28 of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for

2

1 imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the
2 inherent power of the Court.” L.R. 110. “Courts have the ability to address the full range of
3 litigation abuses through their inherent powers.” F.J. Hanshaw Enterprises, Inc. v. Emerald River
4 Dev., Inc., 244 F.3d 1128, 1136 (9th Cir. 2001). “While it is preferable that courts utilize the
5 range of federal rules and statutes dealing with misconduct and abuse of the judicial system, courts
6 may rely upon their inherent powers to sanction bad faith conduct even where such statutes and
7 rules are in place.” Id. at 1136–37.
8

III.

9

DISCUSSION

10

On March 11, 2024, the Court informed Plaintiff that Defendant filed an answer to the

11

complaint on February 27, 2024. (ECF No. 11.) On March 15, 2024, the Court reiterated that

12

Defendant had filed an answer to the complaint and, given his pro se status, cautioned Plaintiff

13

that he must be familiar with the Court’s orders during this litigation. (ECF No. 15.) The Court

14

was on notice that Plaintiff had not yet received Defendant’s filed answer and provided

15

adequate relief by continuing the scheduling conference and requiring that Defendant re-serve

16

its answer. Defendant promptly re-served its answer on March 20, 2024. (ECF No. 17.)

17

However, on March 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed a “renewed” motion requesting entry of default

18

despite this Court’s two previous orders, while simultaneously acknowledging he received

19

Defendant’s answer on March 22, 2024. (ECF No. 19.) The Court finds Plaintiff’s instant

20

request amounts to bad faith.

21

Plaintiff’s multiple filings on issues already addressed delays this heavily impacted Court

22

from addressing matters brought in good faith. The Court’s time is better spent addressing

23

matters brought in good faith. See Snyder v. I.R.S., 596 F. Supp. 240, 252 (N. D. Ind. 1984)

24

(“[T]he doors of this courthouse are open to good faith litigation, but abuse of the judicial

25

process . . . will not be tolerated.”). Plaintiff’s frivolously filed requests for entry of default of a

26

Defendant who has answered, while Plaintiff is in receipt of that answer, will cannot now be

27

ignored. Therefore, the Court shall issue an order requiring Plaintiff to show cause in writing

28

why the Court should not impose monetary sanctions for his frivolous filings made in bad faith.

3

1

IV.

2

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within seven (7) days of entry of this

4

order, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing as to why monetary sanctions should not be imposed

5

for his frivolous filings requesting entry of default.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8 Dated:

March 28, 2024
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4