Alvarez et al v. Lake County Board of Supervisors et al

Filing 101

ORDER by Judge Nandor J. Vadas denying 82 Plaintiff's motion for an order requiring Defendants to settle; and denying 87 Plaintiff's motion for Sanctions and for Default Judgment. The Court orders Defendants to produce hard copies of the September 22, 2009 and December 1, 2009 hearing transcripts requested to Plaintiff by August 19, 2011. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (njvlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2011)

1
2
NOT FOR CITATION
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

EUREKA DIVISION

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

No. CV 10-1071 NJV

FLORIDALMA ALVAREZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
LAKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,
et al.,
Defendants.

/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS FOR AN ORDER
REQUIRING SETTLEMENT; AND
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS AND DEFAULT
JUDGMENT
(Docket Nos. 82, 87)

This is an action based on the denial of a building permit to Plaintiff Floridalma Alvarez and
an order directing Plaintiff to abate the nuisance by Defendants Lake County Board of Supervisors,
Lake County, Lake County Code Enforcement Manager (i.e., Manager of the County’s Code
Enforcement Division) Voris Brumfield in her individual and official capacity, and Director of Lake
County Community Development Department Richard Coel in his individual and official capacity.
The parties consent to jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Plaintiff, who is
proceeding pro se, moves for an order requiring Defendants to settle. Doc. No. 82. Plaintiff also
moves for sanctions and default judgment. Doc. No. 87. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-1(b), Plaintiff’s
motions are taken under submission without oral argument. Having carefully considered the papers
submitted, and for good cause shown, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motions.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff owned, but no longer currently owns, property located at 10865 Pine Point Road in
Cobb, California. This action is based on Defendant Lake County Board of Supervisors’ denial of
Plaintiff’s building permit to build a home on her property and the Board’s order to abate the

1

nuisance requiring Plaintiff to remove personal property and a storage facility on this property.

2

Former Plaintiff Youri Bezdenejnykh has been dismissed with prejudice from the lawsuit. Doc.

3

Nos. 46, 63.
On May 25, 2011, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss

4

the Amended Complaint. Three causes of action were permitted to go forward: (1) a due process

6

claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of property; (2) a separate due process claim raising a

7

void for vagueness challenge to Section 106.1 of the Uniform Building Code; and (3) a claim of

8

racial discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604, against the entity

9

Defendants. All other claims were dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

5

Complaint (“SAC”) and Defendants have filed their answer to the SAC. Doc. Nos. 88, 89, 93.

11

On June 20, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order requiring Defendants to settle. Doc.

12

No. 82. On June 23, 2011, Plaintiff also moved for sanctions and default judgment. Doc. No. 87.

13

Defendants have not filed a response to either motion.1

14
15
16

II. DISCUSSION
A.

Order Requiring Settlement
Plaintiff moves for an order requiring Defendants to settle because Defendants failed to

17

timely submit their settlement conference statement with Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James and

18

because Defendants requested an extension of the discovery deadline. Doc. No. 82. Alternatively,

19

Plaintiff requests evidentiary and monetary sanctions. Defendants have not responded to Plaintiff’s

20

motion.

21

The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion because the failure to timely submit a settlement

22

conference statement does not justify imposition of a court order requiring Defendants to settle.

23

While a party’s violation of court orders may warrant sanctions, Defendants have not violated any

24

court orders. Pursuant to Judge James’ standing order, settlement conference statements are due not

25

later than seven (7) calendar days before the settlement conference and are to be submitted to Judge

26
1

27
28

Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s motions were due on July 5 and July 7, 2011. As of July
27, 2011, Defendants have not filed a response to either motion. The Court warns Defendants that the
failure to respond to Plaintiff’s motions in the future may result in a finding of non-opposition. Even
if Plaintiff’s pro se filings are difficult to understand, Defendants must timely respond as required under
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Civil Local Rules.
2

1

James, not filed. The settlement conference before Judge James has been continued to September

2

21, 2011 (Doc. No. 94), which means that the parties’ settlement conference statements are due by

3

September 14, 2011. Plaintiff’s alternative request for sanctions is addressed in Section II.B.

4

B.

5

Sanctions & Default Judgment
Plaintiff also moved for sanctions and default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil

6

Procedure 37(b)(2). Doc. No. 87. Plaintiff argues that 1) Defendants failed to timely produce

7

discovery requested by Plaintiff; 2) Defendants rejected Plaintiff’s efforts to settle the action outside

8

of the court; 3) Defendants failed to timely submit their settlement conference statement; and

9

4) Defendants “unilaterally” filed a further case management conference (“CMC”) statement rather

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

than the required joint CMC statement. Defendants have not responded to Plaintiff’s motion.
Under Rule 37, the court may sanction a party for disobeying its discovery order including

12

by “directing that the matters embraced in the order or other designated facts be taken as established

13

for purposes of the action”; “prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing

14

designated claims or defenses”; or by “rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party.”

15

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). Here, Defendants have not violated any discovery order and therefore,

16

sanctions under Rule 37 are not proper. In an abundance of caution, the Court addresses each of

17

Plaintiff’s arguments.

18

1.

19

The Court has extended the discovery deadline to August 9, 2011, mooting Plaintiff’s

Discovery

20

arguments regarding the discovery deadline. Doc. No. 95. Plaintiff has requested that Defendants

21

1) produce transcripts from the September 22, 2009 and December 1, 2009 hearings before the

22

Board of Supervisors; and 2) identify the two alleged complainants. It appears that Defendants

23

produced an electronic version of the hearing transcripts on cd-rom, but not a hard copy. Because

24

Plaintiff appears unable to access the transcripts in the electronic format provided, Defendants are

25

ordered to produce hard copies of both hearing transcripts to Plaintiff by August 19, 2011. The

26

parties are ordered to meet and confer by telephone or in person to discuss Plaintiff’s second request

27

regarding the identity of the alleged complainants. If the parties are unable to resolve this issue, the

28

parties shall raise the issue at the upcoming further CMC scheduled for August 30, 2011.
3

1

2.

2

The fact that Defendants have rejected Plaintiff’s efforts to settle the action outside of the

3

Informal Settlement Efforts

court does not warrant sanctions. The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion based on this ground.

4

3.

5

As addressed above, Defendants’ settlement conference statement is not due yet. The

6

parties’ settlement conference statements are not due to Judge James until seven (7) days before the

7

settlement conference. The Court notes that even if Defendants’ settlement conference statement

8

was untimely, this would not warrant sanctions.

9

4.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Settlement Conference Statement

Case Management Conference Statement

The fact that Defendants filed a further CMC statement on their own rather than as a joint
statement does not warrant sanctions. The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion based on this ground.

12

III. CONCLUSION

13

The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to require Defendants to settle and Plaintiff’s motion for

14

sanctions and default judgment. The Court orders Defendants to produce hard copies of the

15

September 22, 2009 and December 1, 2009 hearing transcripts requested to Plaintiff by August 19,

16

2011.

17

Plaintiff has filed numerous documents, including some which are duplicative and some

18

which should not be filed, often at a rate of multiple filings per week. The Court instructs Plaintiff

19

not to file duplicative documents and not to file discovery responses. Plaintiff shall serve her

20

discovery responses on Defendants instead of filing them.

21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
24

NANDOR J. VADAS
United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: July 27, 2011

25
26
27
28
4