Durand et al v. Stephenson et al

Filing 51

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 11/16/2010 ORDERING under FRCP 11(c)(4), the Court finds a sanction requiring plaintiffs to pay $10,056.20 will be sufficient, and not more sever than reasonably necessary, to deter repetit ion of the conduct the Court found objectionable in its 9/29/10 order. Plaintiffs shall pay to the Court's nonappropriated fund $10,056.20, no later than 2/1/2011; Clerk is directed to serve a copy of this order on Court's financial department; plaintiffs are cautioned that failure to comply with this order shall result in contempt proceedings. (cc: financial)(Waggoner, D)

(PS) Durand et al v. Stephenson et al

Doc. 51

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 vs. CANDICE STEPHENSON, et al., Defendants. / The issue of the amount of Rule 11 sanctions against plaintiffs stands submitted. The district court has now denied plaintiffs' motion to reconsider this court's order finding Rule 11 sanctions to be appropriate. Upon review of the declaration of defense counsel regarding the amount of attorneys' fees incurred in connection with plaintiffs' Rule 11 violations, review of the entire record in this matter, and good cause showing THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: 1. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(4), the court finds a sanction requiring plaintiffs to pay $10,056.20 will be sufficient, and not more severe than reasonably necessary, to deter repetition of the conduct the court found objectionable in its September 29, 2010 order. No later than February 1, 2011, plaintiffs shall pay to the court's nonappropriated fund $10,056.20. 1
Dockets.Justia.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EDWIN DURAND, et al., Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-09-2038 JAM KJM PS

ORDER

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
006 durand.rule11

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the court's financial department. 3. Plaintiffs are cautioned that failure to comply with this order shall result in contempt proceedings. DATED: November 16, 2010.

2