Wolf, et al., v. Langemeier, et al.,

Filing 99

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 7/13/2012 ORDERING 77 Defendants' request for dismissal of Surfer Beach and TBD is DENIED since "the district court must weigh five factors before imposing [the sanction of] dismissal" and Defendants have not discussed these factors in their briefs. Defendants' 83 request for attorney fees is DENIED since Defendants have not shown that the fee request is reasonable and "[c]ourts in this circuit require.. parties to justify the reasonableness of the requested rate or rates and demonstrate that the requested rates are in line with those prevailing in the community"; and 84 Motion to sever is DENIED. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

Tamsco Properties, LLC, JKR
Laser Investment, LLC, Surfer
Beach, LLC, To Be Determined,
LLC,

9

Plaintiffs,

10
11

v.

12

Loral Langemeier, Live Out Loud,
Inc.,

13

Defendants.
________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:09-cv-3086-GEB-EFB
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS*

14
Defendants

15

seek

sanctions

under

Federal

Rule

of

Civil

16

Procedure (“Rule”) 11, arguing that Plaintiffs’ counsel violated Rule 11

17

when he “fil[ed] an unauthorized complaint on behalf of Surfer Beach”

18

and “fil[ed] a complaint on behalf of an entity [(TBD)] that apparently

19

does not exist.” (Surfer Beach Mot. 3:10-11; TBD Mot. 2:8-10.) However,

20

the issue of whether Plaintiffs’ counsel violated Rule 11 is not reached

21

since Defendants have not shown that they are entitled to a sanction.

22

Defendants’ request for dismissal of Surfer Beach and TBD is

23

denied since “the district court must weigh five factors before imposing

24

[the sanction of] dismissal” and Defendants have not discussed these

25

factors in their briefs. Porter v. Martinez, 941 F.2d 732, 733 (9th Cir.

26

1991) (citations omitted).

27
28

*

argument.

This matter is deemed suitable for decision without oral
E.D. Cal. R. 230(g).
1

1

Defendants’

request

for

attorney

fees

is

denied

since

2

Defendants have not shown that the fee request is reasonable and

3

“[c]ourts

4

reasonableness of the requested rate or rates and demonstrate that the

5

requested rates are in line with those prevailing in the community”

6

Schultz v. Ichimoto, No. 08-cv-526, 2010 WL 3504781, at *8 (E.D. Cal.

7

Sept. 7, 2010).

in

this

circuit

require

.

.

.

parties

to

justify

the

8

Defendants also seek an order severing each Plaintiff’s claims

9

into separate actions, arguing “Plaintiffs have improperly bundled

10

together claims that are not part of the same transaction[,] . . .

11

different plaintiffs each sue for different investments, with different

12

entities, in different projects.” (Motion to Sever Improperly Joined

13

Claims 2:2-4,

14

plaintiffs’ claims arose from the same transaction or occurrences or a

15

series of both.” (Opp’n to Severance 3:1-2.)

ECF No. 84.) Plaintiffs respond that “[a]ll of the

16

Rule 20(a) “permits the joinder of plaintiffs in one action

17

if: (1) the plaintiffs assert any right to relief arising out of the

18

same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences;

19

and (2) there are common questions of law or fact.” Coughlin v. Rogers,

20

130 F.3d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir. 1997). “[T]he term ‘transaction or

21

occurrence’ . . . refer[s] to similarity in the factual background of a

22

claim; claims that arise out of a systematic pattern of events arise

23

from the same transaction or occurrence.” Bautista v. Los Angeles

24

County, 216 F.3d 837, 843 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). In other

25

words,

26

institute a legal action against another generally are regarded as

27

comprising a transaction or occurrence.” Mosley v. General Motors Corp.,

28

497 F.2d 1330, 1333 (8th Cir. 1974).

“all

‘logically

related’

events

2

entitling

a[n

entity]

to

1

Each

Plaintiff

alleges

that

it

invested

money

through

2

Defendants in reliance on false or misleading statements provided by

3

Defendants at “Big Table” investment seminars held in South Lake Tahoe

4

between May 20-23, 2006, and between September 11-13, and that it

5

suffered damage as a result of the reliance on Defendants’ statements.

6

Defendants have not shown that these allegations are not logically

7

related. Therefore, the motion to sever is denied.

8

Dated:

July 13, 2012

9
10
11

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
Senior United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3