Wine Bottle Recycling LLC v. Niagra Systems LLC et al

Filing 145

ORDER re: SANCTIONS. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on February 21, 2014. (sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/24/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

WINE BOTTLE RECYCLING, LLC,
10
Plaintiff,
11
12

v.
NIAGARA SYSTEMS LLC, et al.,

13
Defendants.
14

) Case No. C-12-1924 SC
)
) ORDER RE: SANCTIONS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

15
16

On January 10, 2014, the Court held a pretrial conference and

17

a show-cause hearing in the above-captioned action.

18

ordered Plaintiff Wine Bottle Recycling, LLC to show cause why its

19

continuing failure to adhere rigidly to Court orders and rules of

20

procedure did not warrant sanctions.

21

parties explained their positions in open court, and the Court

22

determined that sanctions, pursuant to the Court's inherent powers

23

or 28 U.S.C. § 1927, would be appropriate in this case.

24

asked Defendant Niagara Systems, LLC -- the sole remaining

25

defendant in this case -- to submit a bill of costs related to its

26

responses to Plaintiff's deficient and prejudicial filings, which

27

it did.

28

Court that this case was not ready for trial.

ECF No. 142.

The Court had

See ECF No. 107 ("OSC").

The

The Court

By this point it was also obvious to the

Some mistakes during the course of litigation are predictable

1

is unnecessarily protracted, and the litigants are prejudiced.

4

Plaintiff's prosecution of this case has been littered with such

5

mistakes.

6

and time the Court has spent dealing with Plaintiff's mistakes is

7

time taken from other cases on the docket.

8

instance the Court cannot find evidence on the record that

9

Plaintiff's counsel acted in bad faith, recklessly, or frivolously

10

United States District Court

and forgivable.

3

For the Northern District of California

2

But when those mistakes are repeated, litigation

-- all findings required for the Court to issue sanctions, whether

11

under its inherent powers, Rule 11, or 28 U.S.C. § 1927.

12

lawyering is not necessarily frivolous, reckless, or bad faith

13

lawyering.

14

sanction Plaintiff's counsel. 1

15

history, the Court finds that if Plaintiff's counsel continues to

16

fail to follow rules and orders precisely, it is likely that the

17

only possible explanation will be bad faith.

18

Plaintiff has one last chance.

Defendant has clearly been prejudiced to some degree,

However, in this

The Court therefore lacks the legal authority to
However, given this case's long

In other words:

This case involves only two parties and one claim.

19

Negligent

It is not

20

complicated.

As both parties should note, throughout the pretrial

21

process the Court has repeatedly found that there is a real dispute

22

in these facts.

23

The Court therefore refers this case to a magistrate judge for

The case could very easily be tried or settled.

24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court also notes that Defendant's bill of costs was excessive
and not itemized in a way that would allow the Court to analyze the
billing and fairly allocate costs to a sanctioned party. Block
billing reports that do not provide hourly rates and attorney task
descriptions are sometimes not transparent enough for courts to
analyze fully. Further, some of Defendant's rates and hours seem
excessive for the task, and in such cases it would be difficult for
the Court to award fees or costs reasonably and fairly.

2

1

settlement discussions.

Further, a trial-setting conference in

2

this case is set for May 2, 2014.

3

before then, they shall inform the Court immediately.

4

not settle the case, any further pretrial disputes, including

5

discovery matters, will be referred to a magistrate judge for

6

resolution prior to the Court's trial-setting conference and

7

subsequent trial.

If the parties settle the case
If they do

8

Both parties are on notice that any further lateness or

9

failure to adhere to court orders or procedural rules will result

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

in this case's dismissal with prejudice and potential sanctions.

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: February 21, 2014

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

3