Banga v. Ameriprise Auto & Home Insurance Agency

Filing 180

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 2/9/2022 DENYING Plaintiff's Motions for Sanctions 169 , 173 , 174 and GRANTING 170 Defendants' Ex Parte Application for Extension of time. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KAMLESH BANGA,

12

No. 2:18-cv-01072 MCE AC PS

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ORDER

AMERIPRISE AUTO & HOME
INSURANCE AGENCY and IDS
PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY,

15
16

Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and the case was accordingly referred to the

19
20

undersigned by Local Rule 302(c)(21). Pending before the court are plaintiff’s motions for

21

sanctions. ECF Nos. 169, 173, 174.1 Defendants have requested an extension of time to oppose

22

the initial sanctions motion. ECF No. 170. That motion is GRANTED, and all papers have been

23

considered. Plaintiff’s motions for sanctions (ECF Nos. 169, 173, 174) are DENIED for the

24

reasons explained below.
I.

25

This action stems from a dispute over insurance coverage for alleged damage to plaintiff’s

26
27
28

Relevant Procedural Background

1

It appears that ECF No. 174 was intended to replace the earlier filed motions, but out of an
abundance of caution, the court reviewed all three motions and rules on each.
1

1

home caused by a windstorm on January 18, 2016. Revised Third Amended Complaint

2

(“RTAC”), ECF No. 67-3 at 1. Plaintiff sued Ameriprise in state court on January 18, 2018, and

3

Ameriprise removed the action to this court based upon diversity of citizenship (28 U.S.C. §

4

1332). Id. IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company was added as a co-defendant. Id. Plaintiff

5

brings multiple claims against defendant insurers, including breach of contract, bad faith, unfair

6

& unlawful business practices under California’s Unfair Competition Law, intentional

7

misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and intentional/negligent infliction of emotional

8

distress. Id. at 10-21. Discovery in this case concluded in March of 2021. ECF Nos. 91, 117.

9

Both defendants moved for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 124, 125. On November 15, 2021, the

10

undersigned recommended that summary judgment be granted in favor of defendants on all

11

claims, and that this case be closed. ECF No. 162. Plaintiff objected to the findings and

12

recommendations. ECF Nos. 164, 165. The findings and recommendations remain pending

13

before the district judge assigned to this case.

14

In December of 2021 and January of 2022, plaintiff filed the Rule 11 sanctions motions

15

that are under consideration here. ECF No. 174, 163 and 169. Defendants oppose each noticed

16

motion for sanctions. ECF Nos. 176, 177.

17
18

II.

Standard for Sanctions Motion

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and Local Rule 110 allow the court to issue sanctions

19

in the event of party or attorney misconduct. District courts retain broad discretion to control

20

their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions, including where

21

appropriate, default or dismissal.” Adams v. California Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688

22

(9th Cir. 2007) (brackets in original) (quoting Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

23

782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam).

24

III.

25

Analysis

Plaintiff’s motions for sanctions allege that defendants made various factual

26

misrepresentations in their motions for summary judgment. See, e.g., ECF No. 174-1 at 6 (“IDS

27

and its counsels violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (‘Rule 11’) by repeatedly

28

misrepresenting to the Court that Plaintiff’s Revised Third Amended Complaint was barred by
2

1

one year suit limitations because on April 26, 2016, IDS unequivocally denied Plaintiff’s claim

2

for damage to the roof and as of that date, IDS denied Banga’s claim for damage to her roof and

3

this case should be closed.”) The undersigned has reviewed plaintiff’s motions and defendants’

4

oppositions and finds that the motions attempt to re-litigate the summary judgment motions. The

5

undersigned finds no concrete evidence of fraud upon the court or misrepresentations of fact, and

6

therefore declines to issue sanctions. The findings and recommendations on the motions for

7

summary judgment remain pending.

8
9

IV.

Conclusion

For the reasons explained above, plaintiff’s motions for sanctions (ECF Nos. 169, 173,

10

and 174) are DENIED. Defendants’ motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 170) is

11

GRANTED.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 9, 2022

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