Ringgold et al v. Brown et al

Filing 71

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 2/7/13 ORDERING that Plaintiffs' 67 Ex Parte Application is DENIED. Plaintiff's Counsel Nina R. Ringgold is further ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $1,000 to the Clerk within 10 days for filing the application. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

NINA RINGGOLD, ESQ. as named
Trustee of the Aubry Family
Trust and named Executor
under the will of Robert
Aubry on behalf of the trust
and estate and all similarly
situated entities and/or
persons; et al.;
Plaintiff,

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

No.

2:12-CV-00717-JAM-JFM

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION
FOR STAY AND RECONSIDERATION;
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.
JERRY BROWN in his Individual
and Official Capacity as
Governor of the State of
California and in his
Individual and Official
Capacity as Former Attorney
General of the State of
California; et al.;
Defendant.

23
24
25
26
27

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte
Application (Doc. # 67) seeking 1) a stay of the Court’s January
23, 2013 Order (Doc. # 65) and a series of state court cases; 2)
reconsideration of and an order vacating the Court’s January 23,

28
1

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
27

2013 Order; and/or 3) a stay and certification of partial
judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) or 28 U.S.C. § 1292.
In the body of Plaintiffs’ motion, they also seek a ruling on a
motion for sanctions, which they claim was included in opposition
to Defendants’ motion for sanctions (Doc. # 52).
1. Motion for Reconsideration
Plaintiffs move for reconsideration of the Court’s January
23, 2013 Order and a stay of numerous state court cases pending
the outcome of certiorari petitions to the United States Supreme
Court in this action and another action. Since Plaintiffs’
proposed order seeks the same relief that was denied in the
Court’s January 23, 2013 Order, the Court will consider the
request for reconsideration and for stay as one motion for
reconsideration.
“[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted,
absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is
presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error,
or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.”
Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d
873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotation omitted).
Plaintiffs’ motion fails to meet the motion for
reconsideration standard. The motion is a reiteration of the same
arguments and theories extensively briefed prior to the Court’s
order on Plaintiffs’ Application for a Temporary Restraining
Order and the motions decided in the Court’s January 23, 2013
Order.

Plaintiffs’ reliance on recently decided Noel Canning v.

NLRB, Nos. 12–1115, 12–1153, 2013 WL 276024, — F.3d —, 194

28
2

1
2
3
4
5
6

L.R.R.M. 3089 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 25, 2013), a case that analyzed the
constitutionality of recess appointments made under the federal
Constitution, is misplaced because that case has nothing to do
with the issues presented in Plaintiffs’ suit.
reconsideration is therefore DENIED.
2. Certification of Partial Judgment

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

The request for

Plaintiffs next seek certification to appeal the Court’s
January 23, 2013 Order under 29 U.S.C. 1292(b).

Certification

under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) is denied because Judge Real’s prefiling was the primary basis for the Court’s January 23, 2013
Order.

Judge Real’s order can be appealed directly, making 28

U.S.C. § 1292(b) certification in this case unnecessary at this
time.
Plaintiffs also seek entry of partial judgment pursuant to
Rule 54(b) on the Court’s order entering sanctions against
Plaintiffs Ringgold and Ringgold-Lockhart.

Plaintiffs seek

partial judgment because they claim it is unclear as to whether
sanctions were entered in their capacity as parties to this
action or non-parties.

The Court clearly entered sanctions

against Plaintiffs Ringgold and Ringgold-Lockhart in their
capacity as parties to this lawsuit.

Certification under Rule

54(b) is therefore unnecessary, and this matter will be subject
to appeal upon entry of final judgment in this action.

Riverhead

Sav. Bank v. Nat'l Mortg. Equity Corp., 893 F.2d 1109, 1113 (9th
Cir. 1990).
3. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions
Plaintiffs request a ruling on their motion for sanctions,

28
3

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
27

which was included in the memorandum filed in opposition to
Defendant’s motion for sanctions (Doc. # 52).

Plaintiffs sought

sanctions on the grounds that Defendants’ motion was frivolous.
The basis for Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions was rejected when
the Court granted Defendants’ motion, thereby finding that the
motion was not frivolous. Additionally, Plaintiffs never complied
with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2) which are 1)
that any Rule 11 motion be made separate from any other motion,
and 2) that the parties against whom sanctions are sought be
given 21 days to withdraw the offending pleading.

Accordingly,

Plaintiffs’ motion was not properly before the Court. Plaintiffs
are denied sanctions for this reason as well.
4. Sanctions
Finally, the present application was filed after Plaintiffs’
Counsel Nina R. Ringgold was expressly admonished to carefully
consider the propriety of future filings in the Court’s January
23, 2013 Order.
A federal district court has the inherent power to sanction
attorneys appearing before it.
(9th Cir. 2001).

Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 992

Sanctions may be imposed “where an attorney

knowingly or recklessly raises a frivolous argument . . . .” for
an improper purpose.

Id. at 993 (quoting Primus Auto. Fin.

Servs., Inc. v. Batarse, 115 F.3d 644, 648 (9th Cir.1997)).
The present application for ex parte relief is almost
entirely based on theories and arguments that the Court
considered and rejected in its January 23, 2013 Order, issued
just eight days prior to this application.

28
4

Accordingly, Ms.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Ringgold was aware that another motion based on those theories
and arguments would be frivolous.

She nevertheless chose to file

the present motion seeking to circumvent the Court’s prior order
and multiply these proceedings without regard to unnecessary
burdens created for the Court and Defendants in this matter.

The

Court therefore finds that the present motion recklessly raised
frivolous arguments for an improper purpose.

As a result,

Plaintiffs’ Counsel Nina R. Ringgold is hereby ordered to pay
$1,000 in sanctions to the Clerk of Court within 10 days.

10
11
12
13
14
15

ORDER
Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application is DENIED in its entirety.
Plaintiffs’ Counsel Nina R. Ringgold is further ordered to pay
sanctions in the amount of $1,000 to the Clerk of Court within 10
days for filing the application.

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 7, 2013

____________________________
JOHN A. MENDEZ,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5