Trevino v. Lassen Municipal Utility District, et al.

Filing 121

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 04/03/09 ORDERING that this Court's 119 02/12/09 Order is AMENDED at footnote one to reflect that plfs' counsel is not sanctioned for failure to file a timely opposition and that the total sanction amount is $300. As plfs' counsel has already deposited $450 with the Clerk, the Clerk is directed to DISBURSE $150 to plfs' counsel, Thomas Beko (cc: Financial). (Benson, A.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 14 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 / Plaintiffs have brought an action in this court seeking redress for asserted violations of their due process rights as a result of one plaintiff's termination from his employment by defendants. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment, which the court resolved by order on February 12, 2009. In that order, the court also sanctioned plaintiffs' counsel in the amount of $450 for his failure to timely file certain documents in support of LASSEN MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, et al., ORDER STEVEN TREVINO, an individual, NO. CIV. S-07-2106 LKK/DAD UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

plaintiffs' motion and in opposition to defendants'. Plaintiffs' counsel now seeks partial reconsideration of that order. The court's sanctions order was based on three violations of 1

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

the Local Rules by plaintiffs' counsel, with a sanction of $150 for each. One of these violations was the plaintiffs' apparent failure to timely file their opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment. That motion was noticed to be heard on January 30, 2009. According to the Local Rules, plaintiffs' opposition was required to be served by mail or electronic service seventeen days prior to the hearing, or fourteen days prior to the hearing if personally served. Local Rule 78-230(c). Plaintiffs' opposition was

electronically filed on January 15, 2009, fifteen days prior to the hearing. Through the court's electronic filing system, the

opposition was also electronically served on defendants' counsel on this date. See Docket No. 106. Based on this and defendants' representations, see Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Evidence Submitted in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment ¶ 37, the court concluded that

plaintiffs' opposition was untimely. Plaintiffs' counsel has now tendered evidence that defendants' counsel was personally served on January 15, 2009. Affidavit of Thomas P. Beko In Compliance With the Sanctions Order of February 13, 2009. As such, service was timely under Local Rule 78-230(c). Accordingly, the court's February 12, 2009 order is AMENDED at footnote one to reflect that plaintiffs' counsel is not

sanctioned for failure to file a timely opposition and that the total sanction amount is $300. As plaintiffs' counsel has already deposited $450 with the Clerk of the Court, the Clerk is directed //// 2

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

to disburse $150 to plaintiffs' counsel, Thomas Beko. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: April 3, 2009.

3