Wallis et al v. Centennial Insurance Company Inc et al

Filing 56

ORDER RE: SANCTIONS signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 7/16/2009 ORDERING that w/in seven days of the date of this Order, counsel for dfts shall send pymt in the amount of $300.00 to the Clerk or request that the matter be scheduled for a formal hearing.(Matson, R)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 v. CENTENNIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., a New York corporation, ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE, CO., INC., a New York corporation, Defendants, AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT. / UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ----oo0oo---DALE M. WALLIS, D.V.M., JAMES L. WALLIS, and HYGIEIA BIOLOGICAL LABORATORIES, INC., a California Corporation, Plaintiffs,

NO. CIV. 08-02558 WBS GGH ORDER RE: SANCTIONS

/

----oo0oo---In their response to this court's Order to Show Cause

24 of July 7, 2009, counsel for defendants submitted a letter 25 requesting that the court waive the sanctions and explaining that 26 they "inadvertently failed to include a corporate disclosure" 27 with defendants' Status Report. (Docket No. 55.) Counsel

28 attempt to justify their noncompliance by explaining that 1

1 defendants' Status Report was prepared with reference to 2 plaintiffs' earlier-filed Status Report, which omitted the 3 corporate disclosures. Counsel further explain that they were

4 "remiss in not confirming that [they] had complied with all 5 portions of the Court's Order Setting Status, and inadvertently 6 failed to include a corporate disclosure as part of [the] Status 7 Report." In filing a supplemental report after the status

8 conference was continued, counsel used the initial Status Report 9 as a template and consequently "repeat[ed] the inadvertent 10 mistake." 11 This attempt to excuse noncompliance with the court's

12 Order as simple inadvertence or negligence does not show good 13 cause why the court should not impose sanctions. First, under

14 the circumstances, counsel's noncompliance with the court's 15 October 28 Order exceeded mere negligence. Rather than heeding

16 the court's warning regarding sanctions and verifying that 17 defendants' Status Report complied with the court's explicit 18 directions, counsel for defendants simply mimicked the 19 presentation of information in plaintiffs' deficient Status 20 Report. Counsel then again failed to confirm that they had

21 complied with the October 28 Order when they filed defendants' 22 updated Status Report some months later. 23 Second, even if the failure to file defendants'

24 corporate disclosures resulted from mere negligence, such 25 characterization does not preclude the imposition of sanctions. 26 A district court has the authority under Federal Rule of Civil 27 Procedure 16(f) to impose sanctions for even unintentional or 28 negligent noncompliance with the court's pretrial orders. 2 See,

1 e.g., Lucas Auto. Eng'g, Inc. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 275 2 F.3d 762, 769 (9th Cir. 2001) (upholding Rule 16 sanctions 3 imposed on a party for unintentionally failing to attend a 4 scheduled mediation due to an incapacitating headache); Ayers v. 5 City of Richmond, 895 F.2d 1267, 1270 (9th Cir. 1990) (upholding 6 a district court's sanctions under Rule 16(f) where counsel 7 failed to appear for a settlement conference because the date 8 "slipped by him"); Mt. Shasta Title & Escrow Co. v. Pennbrook 9 Homes, No. 07-963, 2007 WL 4210478, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 10 2007) (Burrell, J.) (sanctioning counsel $200 for mistakenly 11 filing an inaccurate status report indicating that a party had 12 been served); see also William W. Schwarzer et al., Practice 13 Guide: Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial 15:81 (Nat'l ed. 14 2009) ("It need not be shown that the party to be sanctioned was 15 acting recklessly or in bad faith. Negligent failure to comply

16 with Rule 16 justifies imposition of appropriate sanctions."). 17 Accordingly, defendants have failed to show good cause

18 why the court should not impose sanctions for the failure to file 19 corporate disclosures as required by the court's October 28 20 Order. Further, because counsel for defendants have explained

21 that counsel's failure to verify the terms of the October 28 22 Order--rather than any omission the part of their corporate 23 clients--was the cause of defendants' noncompliance, payment 24 shall be borne by counsel rather than their clients. 25 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, within seven days of the

26 date of this Order, counsel for defendants shall send payment in 27 /// 28 /// 3

1 the amount of $300, as sanctions, to the Clerk of the Court or 2 request that the matter be scheduled for a formal hearing. 3 DATED: 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 July 16, 2009