Becker et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, Inc. et al
Filing
76
ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 10/06/11 ORDERING that counsel for defendants is SANCTIONED in the amount of $1,000 that shall be paid w/i 30 days. Counsel shall file an affidavit accompanying the payment of this sanction which states that it is paid personally by counsel, out of personal funds, and is not and will not be billed, directly or indirectly, to the client, or in any way made the responsibility of the client, as attorneys' fees or costs. (Benson, A.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
DENNLY R. BECKER, THE
BECKER TRUST DATED
MARCH 25, 1991,
11
NO. CIV. S-10-2799 LKK/KJN
12
Plaintiffs,
13
v.
O R D E R
14
15
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
WACHOVIA MORTGAGE
CORPORATION; DOES 1-20,
16
Defendants.
17
18
19
/
I.
INTRODUCTION
On November 12, 2010, plaintiff Dennly R. Becker filed a
20
motion for a preliminary injunction.
21
timely response to the motion.
22
the court issued an Order To Show Cause why defendants’ counsel
23
should not be fined $150.
24
the Order To Show Cause, and on January 11, 2011, the court
25
sanctioned defendants’ counsel $150.
26
Defendants failed to file a
Accordingly, on December 14, 2010,
Defendants’ counsel never responded to
Also on January 11, 2011, the court issued a further Order To
1
1
Show Cause why defendants’ counsel should not be fined $1,000 or
2
suffer a judgment for plaintiff, as a sanction for failing to
3
respond to the December 14, 2010 Order To Show Cause.
4
counsel timely responded, and on January 21, 2011, the court
5
sanctioned defendants’ counsel in the reduced amount of $350.
6
On
August
25,
2011,
plaintiff
filed
a
Defendants’
motion
for
7
reconsideration of a prior order of this court.
8
to file a timely response.
9
court issued an Order To Show Cause why defendants’ counsel should
be
fined
$1,000
or
Defendants failed
Accordingly, on October 4, 2011, the
10
not
suffer
a
judgment
for
plaintiff.
11
Defendants’ counsel timely responded with a sworn declaration.
12
II.
DISCUSSION
13
Defendants’ counsel argues against sanctions on the grounds
14
that (i) the pro se plaintiff's filings confused him, citing court
15
docket entries from January 13, 2011 to September 12, 2011; (ii) by
16
September 12, 2011, the reconsideration motion had become moot;
17
(iii) the reconsideration motion should be taken off calendar
18
because
19
(iv) sanctions would be unfair because defendants’ counsel has
20
“tried to work in good faith with Mr. Becker to get the pleadings
21
straightened out.”
22
of
a
subsequent
motion
filed
by
plaintiff;
and
None of these arguments explains counsel’s failure to file a
23
timely response to the reconsideration motion.
24
that “[t]he confusion here” was caused by plaintiff’s filings.
25
Counsel
26
overlapping filings have generated confusion.
is
correct
that
plaintiff’s
2
multiple
Counsel asserts
and
sometimes
But he does not
1
claim
that
this
confusion
caused
him
to
believe
that
the
2
reconsideration motion had been removed from the court’s calendar
3
(or even that he, in his confusion, mistakenly removed it from his
4
own office scheduling calendar).
5
the court’s calendar, it is unreasonable for counsel to argue that
6
he could simply do nothing.
With the motion still pending on
7
Counsel’s belief that the motion had become moot does not
8
explain why he failed to file a timely response stating that the
9
motion should be denied as moot.
Counsel’s belief that the motion
10
should be taken off the calendar fails to explain why he did not
11
file a timely response setting forth this belief, or a timely
12
request that the motion be taken off calendar.
13
“good faith efforts” to straighten out the pleadings explains
14
nothing in regard to his own failure to file a timely response to
15
the reconsideration motion.
16
Finally, counsel’s
Counsel has failed, once again, to meet his obligations under
17
the local rules.
In light of counsel’s repeated failures, the
18
court has given due consideration to the sanction of a judgment for
19
plaintiff. However, accepting counsel’s sworn declaration at face
20
value, it appears that counsel believed that no response to the
21
motion was necessary, no matter how grossly mistaken he was.
22
court has therefore determined to impose only a fine.
23
no mitigating circumstances, nor any real basis for counsel’s
24
mistaken belief however, the court will not reduce the size of the
25
fine.
26
////
3
The
There being
Accordingly, counsel for defendants is SANCTIONED in the
1
2
amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000).
3
to the Clerk of the Court no later than thirty (30) days from the
4
date of this order.
5
the
6
personally by counsel, out of personal funds, and is not and will
7
not be billed, directly or indirectly, to the client, or in any way
8
made the responsibility of the client, as attorneys’ fees or costs.
9
10
payment
of
Counsel shall file an affidavit accompanying
this
sanction
which
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
This sum shall be paid
October 6, 2011.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
4
states
that
it
is
paid
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?