Martinez v. CPG Finance II, LLC et al
Filing
106
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 06/22/11 DENYING #84 Motion for Sanctions. (Michel, G)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
Tony Martinez,
Plaintiff,
12
13
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
v.
17
Columbia Sportswear USA Corp.
dba Columbia Sportswear Company
#446; Eddie Bauer, a Delaware
LLC dba Eddie Bauer Outlet
#R-867; New Balance Athletic
Shoe, Inc. dba New Balance
#0015,
18
Defendants.
________________________________
14
15
16
2:10-cv-01333-GEB-KJN
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
19
20
Defendant New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc. dba New Balance
21
#0015 (“Defendant”) seeks sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel
22
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 11. (ECF No. 84.)
23
Specifically, Defendant argues: “Plaintiff and his counsel should be
24
required to reimburse New Balance for all attorneys’ fees and costs that
25
it incurred to oppose and/or defend itself from the baseless allegations
26
in the Complaint, [in the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)], and [in
27
Plaintiff’s] Application for Continuance[ of Defendant’s motion for
28
summary judgment].” (Mot. 3:15-17.)
1
1
Plaintiff
filed
an
opposition
to
the
motion;
however,
2
Plaintiff and his counsel, Lynn Hubbard, III (“Hubbard”), failed to
3
appear at the hearing on the motion. (ECF Nos. 92, 100.) Plaintiff
4
submitted the declaration of Hubbard after the scheduled hearing on
5
Defendant’s Rule 11 motion, in which Plaintiff explains why he failed to
6
appear at the scheduled hearing. (ECF No. 102.) Specifically, in that
7
declaration Hubbard declares he “had notice of this hearing but did not
8
appear, because [he] thought that . . . the hearing[] had been vacated
9
with the grant of judgment in favor of the defense.” Id. ¶ 2. However,
10
nothing in the judgment vacated the scheduled hearing on Defendant’s
11
Rule 11 motion. (ECF Nos. 98-99.) Further, “[i]t is well established
12
that a federal court may consider collateral issues[, such as Rule 11
13
sanctions motion,] after an action is no longer pending.” Cooter & Gell
14
v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 395-396 (1990).
15
Defendant indicates by including the following new argument
16
in its reply brief that it desires to exceed the scope of its noticed
17
Rule 11 motion: “[t]he Court should award New Balance the attorneys’
18
fees and costs incurred to defend plaintiff’s frivolous claims as
19
provided for under [42 U.S.C. § 12205].” (Reply 5:4-5.) However, since
20
this new argument is made for the first time in the reply brief it need
21
not be considered and is stricken because it has not been duly noticed
22
for hearing. See Int’l Union of Bricklayers v. Martin Jaska, Inc., 752
23
F.2d 1401, 1404 (9th Cir. 1985) (“[W]e will not ordinarily consider
24
matters . . . that are not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
25
in [the] opening brief”).
26
Although Defendant requests that a Rule 11 sanction be imposed
27
against both Plaintiff and his counsel, “Rule 11 sanctions are generally
28
imposed on attorneys, not litigants”. Kiobel v. Millson, 592 F.3d 78, 87
2
1
(2nd Cir. 2010) (Cabranes, J., concurring) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 11
2
Advisory Committee’s Notes, 146 F.R.D. 401, 588 (West 1993) (“The person
3
signing, filing, submitting, or advocating a document has a nondelegable
4
responsibility to the court, and in most situations is the person to be
5
sanctioned for a violation.”)). Further, Defendant has not presented
6
evidence supporting his motion against Plaintiff. Therefore, the portion
7
of Defendant’s Rule 11 motion which is against Plaintiff is DENIED.
8
Defendant withdrew its request for costs at the hearing, in
9
light of the adverse judgment entered against Plaintiff pursuant to an
10
order filed three days before the hearing.
11
Further, Defendant’s counsel initially argued at the hearing
12
that Defendant is entitled to a sanction against Hubbard based solely on
13
the text of Rule 11(c)(4), and that the Advisory Committee Notes
14
concerning the relevant portion of Rule 11 should be disregarded.
15
However, after Defendant’s counsel was questioned by the Court about his
16
basis for this argument, Defendant’s counsel conceded that the Advisory
17
Committee Notes could be considered. Defendant’s counsel’s argument
18
against using the Advisory Committee Notes reflects a misunderstanding
19
of applicable precedent governing the interpretation of a Federal Rule
20
of Civil Procedure. The Ninth Circuit has stated: “We look to Advisory
21
Committee Notes when interpreting a federal rule for ‘guidance and
22
insight.’” U.S. v. Saeteurn, 504 F.3d 1175, 1180 n.11 (9th Cir. 2007)
23
(citation omitted). There are nine factors in the applicable portion of
24
the Advisory Committee Notes on Rule 11 which a Court may consider when
25
determining what sanction is appropriate under Rule 11. Fed.R.Civ.P. 11
26
Advisory
27
directly address these factors in its motion, and the evidence cited in
Committee
Notes,
146
F.R.D.
28
3
at
587.
Defendant
failed
to
1
Defendant’s motion is only relevant to consideration of three of these
2
factors.
3
However, these factors need not be analyzed since in response
4
to the following inquiry at the hearing on the motion Defendant in
5
effect withdrew its request to have Hubbard reimburse it for the
6
attorneys’ fees expended defending this case: the Court questioned
7
whether Defendant had sufficient evidence to justify the attorney fee
8
reimbursement sanction it seeks against Hubbard, or whether instead, the
9
monetary sanction it seeks against Hubbard should be paid into the
10
United States Treasury. Defendant’s counsel responded stating his client
11
would be “happy” if the Court ordered Hubbard to pay the monetary
12
sanction it seeks into the United States Treasury. This response is
13
tantamount
14
reimbursement of attorneys’ fees, and essentially comprises an oral
15
motion requesting that Hubbard be required to pay an unspecified amount
16
of monetary sanctions into the United States Treasury. However, this
17
sanctions issue has not been adequately noticed for hearing; nor has it
18
been adequately briefed in light of Defendant’s failure to directly
19
address the factors enumerated in the Rule 11 Advisory Committee Notes
20
applicable to the motion. Therefore, Defendant’s motion for Rule 11
21
sanctions is DENIED.
22
Dated:
to
Defendant
explicitly
withdrawing
its
June 22, 2011
23
24
25
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge
26
27
28
4
request
for
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?