Durand et al v. Stephenson et al
Filing
69
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 8/22/2012. No later than 9/14/2012, plaintiffs shall submit a Declaration setting forth specific information regarding wages and income. The issue of amount for sanctions to be imposed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 will thereafter stand SUBMITTED. (Marciel, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
EDWIN DURAND, et al.,
11
12
13
14
15
Plaintiffs,
No. CIV S-09-2038 JAM CKD PS
vs.
CANDICE STEPHENSON, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
/
16
By order filed September 29, 2010, the court determined that sanctions should be
17
imposed on plaintiffs under Rule 11. That order did not make a determination of the amount of
18
the sanctions, pending further briefing by the parties. Plaintiffs moved to reconsider and by order
19
filed November 10, 2010, the district judge denied the motion to reconsider. Judgment was
20
entered in this action on November 10, 2010 and an appeal was taken. An order was filed
21
November 16, 2010 which set the amount of sanctions in the amount of $10,056.20. Dkt. no. 51.
22
In remanding this matter to the District Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
23
Circuit noted that “the magistrate judge’s post-judgment order setting the amount of
24
sanctions is not a final order. See Estate of Conners by Meredith v. O’Connor, 6 F.3d
25
656, 658-59 (9th Cir. 1993) (explaining that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) does not permit
26
issuance of a directly appealable final order, nor does it authorize entry of a post1
1
judgment order); Jensen Elec. Co. v. Moore, Caldwell, Rowland & Dodd, Inc., 873 F.2d
2
1327, 1329 (9th Cir. 1989) (an order awarding sanctions is not appealable until the
3
amount of sanctions is determined).” Dkt. no. 59 at p. 5. Accordingly, the November 16,
4
2010 order was vacated. Dkt. no. 62. The parties have now submitted further briefing on the
5
issue of sanctions.
6
Plaintiffs assert that they do not have the ability to pay sanctions in the amount of
7
$10,056.20. In support of this assertion, in the reply filed August 13, 2012, plaintiff Madelaine
8
Durand declared under penalty of perjury that “the Durand does not have $10,056.20.” Despite
9
this declaration, the court notes that plaintiffs on August 16, 2012 filed an expert witness report
10
in which the expert stated that he received mineral testing services from plaintiff Edwin Durand
11
and a piece of equipment, which together were valued at $8,000, as payment for his expert
12
witness fee. Dkt. no. 68. Plaintiffs have offered to submit evidence of their finances and will be
13
afforded an opportunity to do so. See generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, Advisory Committee Notes,
14
1993 Amendments (court may consider, among other factors, “what amount, given the financial
15
resources of the responsible person, is needed to deter that person from repetition in the same
16
case”).
17
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
18
1. No later than September 14, 2012, plaintiffs shall submit a declaration, signed
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
under penalty of perjury by each plaintiff, setting forth the following information:
a. Plaintiffs’ monthly gross pay or wages.
b. Other income in the past 12 months received from the following
sources (for each category describe each source of money and state the
amount received and the amount expected to be received in the future):
i.
business, profession, or other self-employment
ii.
rent payments, interest or dividends
iii.
pension, annuity, or life insurance payments
iv.
disability, or worker’s compensation payments
v.
gifts, or inheritances
vi.
any other sources
c. Amount of money in checking, savings, and retirement accounts.
d. Items of value owned by plaintiffs, including automobiles, construction
equipment or other heavy machinery, real estate, stocks, bonds,
2
1
2
e.
3
f.
4
g.
h.
5
6
7
securities, trusts, jewelry, art work, or other financial
instruments.
Housing, transportation, utilities, loan payments or other regular
monthly expenses.
Names of all persons dependent on plaintiffs for support, relationship,
and amount of contribution for support.
Any debts or other financial obligations.
All limited liability partnerships, corporations or other businesses
owned by plaintiffs or in which plaintiffs are corporate officers.
2. The issue of the amount of sanctions to be imposed under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 11 will thereafter stand submitted.
8
Dated: August 22, 2012
9
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
11
12
4
durand.2038.expaff
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?