Stahl Law Firm et al v. Judicate West et al

Filing 74

ORDER Requesting Clarification RE 67 Defendant Di Figlia's Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 01/10/14. (tehlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/10/2014)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

STAHL LAW FIRM, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

5
6

v.

7

JUDICATE WEST, et al.,

8

Case No. 13-cv-01668-TEH
ORDER REQUESTING
CLARIFICATION

Defendants.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

This matter is scheduled to come before the Court on January 13, 2014, on

12

Defendant Vincent Di Figlia’s (“Defendant”) motion for sanctions pursuant to Federal

13

Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Rule 11(c)(2) provides strict procedural requirements for

14

parties to follow when they move for sanctions under Rule 11. To comply with the Rule,

15

Defendant was required to serve its Rule 11 motion on Plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 5 but not

16

file or present the Rule 11 motion to the Court for at least twenty-one days after service so

17

as to allow Plaintiffs the opportunity to withdraw the complaint within the safe harbor time

18

period. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2); Radcliffe v. Rainbow Const. Co., 254 F.3d 772, 789 (9th

19

Cir. 2001).

20

Counsel for Defendant averred that “Mr. Stahl was served with the Rule 11 Motion

21

prior to its filing” and that he was provided with “a safe harbor to withdraw his Second

22

Amended Complaint” but failed to do so. Declaration of Colin H. Walshok, ¶ 6, Docket

23

No. 73-1. The Court notes, however, that the motion for sanctions provides that “if Mr.

24

Stahl does not withdraw his Second Amended Complaint during the safe harbor time

25

period, counsel for Defendant Di Figlia will prepare a declaration detailing the attorney’s

26

fees and costs they have incurred . . . .” Mot. at 9-10, Docket No. 67. The Court could

27

therefore infer from the language of the filed motion that it was not served prior to the

28

expiration of the safe harbor or, as is more likely, could infer that this is a copy of the

1

motion that was served on Plaintiffs, and then later filed after the safe harbor period had

2

run. The Court requires clarification on this issue. Accordingly, Defendant IS HEREBY

3

ORDERED to file a copy of the Rule 11 motion served on Plaintiffs, in addition to the

4

proof of service thereto no later than January 17, 2014.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9

Dated: 01/10/14

_____________________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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

2