Allen, et al v. County of Lake, et al

Filing 132

ORDER imposing monetary sanctions and referring Plaintiffs' counsel to the Court's Standing Committee on Professional Conduct. Plaintiffs' counsel shall make payment to the Court no later than 08/18/2015. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 08/11/2015. (tehlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/11/2015)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

MONA ALLEN, et al.,

5

Plaintiffs,

6
7
8

v.
COUNTY OF LAKE, et al.,
Defendants.

9

Case No. 14-cv-03934-TEH
ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY
SANCTIONS ON PLAINTIFFS’
COUNSEL AND ORDER OF
REFERRAL TO THE COURT’S
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT FOR
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

This matter is before the Court on an order for Plaintiffs’ counsel to show cause as

12

to why monetary sanctions should not issue for his repeated failure to submit documents in

13

a timely fashion. Order to Show Cause (Docket No. 123); see also Order re: Plaintiffs’

14

Briefing (Docket No. 94). After considering counsel’s arguments in his response and at

15

the hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ counsel shall pay sanctions in the

16

amount of $250, and moreover, that this matter is hereby referred to the Court’s Standing

17

Committee on Professional Conduct, for the reasons set forth below.

18
19
20

BACKGROUND
This case was initially filed in August of 2014. Compl. (Docket No. 1). Since that

21

time, Plaintiffs’ counsel has repeatedly filed briefs and documents late, often followed by a

22

“corrected” version hours or days later. For example, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to

23

amend their Complaint on their self-suggested deadline of October 20, 2014 to file such

24

motion (Docket No. 61), and then filed an “amended motion” on October 24 (Docket No.

25

63). In January of this year, Plaintiffs filed their opposition to Defendants’ motion to

26

dismiss at midnight on January 8 (although it was due on January 7) (Docket No. 82), and

27

then filed a “corrected” opposition at 1:14 PM later that day (Docket No. 84).

28

Because of this “troubling pattern” of late filings, which “confuse matters and

1
2

require additional effort in drafting a response,” the Court instructed Plaintiffs’ counsel in

3

February of this year that “late filings shall not be considered in the future, and will be

4

subject to monetary sanctions.” Order re: Plaintiffs’ Briefing at 1.
The parties appeared for a case management conference on August 3, 2015.

5

(Docket No. 128). Under the local rules, a joint statement was due seven days earlier.

7

Civil L.R. 16-10(d). Defendants filed a statement on time, although the statement was

8

filed unilaterally because Plaintiffs’ counsel could not contribute his portion by

9

Defendants’ requested deadline of 3:30 PM on the day it was due. Defendants’ Updated

10

Case Management Conference Statement at 2 n.1 (Docket No. 119); Ex. 1 to Plaintiffs’

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

Response to Order to Show Cause at 2 (Docket No. 129-1). Plaintiffs’ counsel called the

12

Courtroom Deputy on July 28, the day after the statement was due, and stated that he

13

would submit his portion of the statement later that day. However, Plaintiffs’ counsel did

14

not file any statement prior to the case management conference, but only submitted one in-

15

person at the conference. See Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement at 1 (Docket No.

16

127).

17

On July 28, the day after his case management conference statement was due, the

18

Court ordered Plaintiffs’ counsel to show cause as to why monetary sanctions should not

19

issue, since he was previously instructed that late filings would be subject to monetary

20

sanctions. Order to Show Cause at 1. The Court ordered Plaintiffs’ counsel to file a

21

response no later than August 4, 2015. Id. Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a response on August 5

22

– one day late. (Docket No. 129).

23

The Court held a hearing on the order to show cause on August 10, 2015. (Docket

24

No. 130). At the hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel stated that Defendants’ early deadline for his

25

contribution to the joint statement caused his own submission to be late. Hr’g Tr. at 4:9-13

26

(Docket No. 131). Plaintiffs’ counsel also stated that he did not file a unilateral statement

27

on time because he had an email exchange with Defense counsel in which Defense counsel

28

permitted him to file his statement a day late. Id. at 5:9-13. Plaintiffs’ counsel also stated
2

1

– twice – that he submitted his case management conference statement the day after it was

2

due. Id. at 4:9-10 (“It’s for that reason that I was one day late in filing my portion of the

3

Case Management Conference Statement . . . .”); id. at 6:8-10 (“I did file a joint -- or my

4

portion of the Case Management Conference Statement the following day, which was still

5

six days before the case management conference . . . .”).
Additionally, for both the August 3 case management conference and the August 10

7

hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel required the Court’s clerk to sign him in to the federal building.

8

When asked by the Court about this, Plaintiffs’ counsel stated that his wallet had been

9

stolen. Id. at 8:1-2. When the Court then asked what efforts Plaintiffs’ counsel had made

10

to replace his identification, he did not list any, but instead referred to his religious identity

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

and stated that he didn’t “believe that people should have to carry identification.” Id. at

12

8:19-21.

13
14

LEGAL STANDARD

15

The Court may impose monetary sanctions under its inherent power to “police

16

itself.” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 45-46 (1991). To deter abuse of the

17

judicial process, a court may impose monetary sanctions “for the willful disobedience of a

18

court order.” Id. at 45 (internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, “a court may

19

assess attorneys’ fees when a party has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for

20

oppressive reasons.” Id. at 45-46 (internal quotation marks omitted). “As long as a party

21

receives an appropriate hearing . . . the party may be sanctioned for abuses of process

22

occurring beyond the courtroom . . . .” Id. at 57. To award sanctions under its inherent

23

powers, the court must “specifically find[] bad faith or conduct tantamount to bad faith.

24

Sanctions are available for a variety of types of willful actions, including recklessness

25

when combined with an additional factor such as frivolousness, harassment, or an

26

improper purpose.” Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 994 (9th Cir. 2001).

27
28

3

1

In addition, “In the event that a Judge has cause to believe that an attorney has

2

engaged in unprofessional conduct, the Judge may . . . [r]efer the matter to the Court’s

3

Standing Committee on Professional Conduct.” Civil L.R. 11-6(a).

4
5
6

DISCUSSION
The Court readily concludes that Plaintiffs’ counsel’s conduct warrants the
imposition of monetary sanctions. As set forth in detail above, Plaintiffs’ counsel has

8

repeatedly filed briefs late, even after being warned that such late filings will be subject to

9

monetary sanctions. Indeed, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed his portion of the case management

10

conference statement a full week late, even though he had notice from this Court’s prior

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

orders that the statement was due on July 27, and even though he called the Courtroom

12

Deputy on July 28 and told her that the statement would be filed later that day.

13

The Court is not persuaded by counsel’s explanation for his late filing. Defense

14

counsel’s request to receive Plaintiffs’ counsel’s portion of the statement by 3:30 PM on

15

the day it was due did not in any way preclude Plaintiffs’ counsel from filing the statement

16

on time. At most, the request precluded the parties from filing a statement jointly.

17

However, the parties’ inability to file a statement jointly does not excuse either party’s

18

independent obligation to submit its portion of the statement on time. This is especially

19

true here, where Plaintiffs’ counsel has been warned about late filings in the past.

20

Nor is Plaintiffs’ counsel’s late filing excused by Defense counsel’s agreement to

21

let him file his portion late. The parties cannot simply agree not to be bound by the local

22

rules and this Court’s prior orders. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ counsel did not provide any

23

evidence of such an agreement in his response to the order to show cause.

24

Making matters worse, Plaintiffs’ counsel submitted his response to the order to

25

show cause a full day late. His response gave no explanation for the late filing of his

26

response, nor did Plaintiffs’ counsel explain it at the hearing.

27
28

The Court is also very concerned by Plaintiffs’ counsel’s statements at the hearing
regarding the timing of his submission. Plaintiffs’ counsel submitted his portion of the
4

1

case management statement one week after it was due, by handing his statement to the

2

Court at the case management conference. Yet, at the hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel twice

3

stated, incorrectly, that he submitted his statement just one day after it was due. Hr’g Tr.

4

at 4:9-10 & 6:8-10. Either Plaintiffs’ counsel did not remember the day on which he

5

submitted the late filing for which he was ordered to show cause, or he lied to the Court

6

about the day. Either scenario indicates a troubling degree of unprofessional behavior.
Considering the facts set forth above, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ counsel

7
8

willfully disobeyed the Court’s prior orders by repeatedly filing documents late after

9

having been explicitly instructed not to do so. Moreover, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’
counsel’s misrepresentation of the date on which he filed his portion of the case

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

management conference statement and repeated arrival at the federal building without

12

identification, requiring court staff to sign him in, constitutes unprofessional conduct

13

tantamount to bad faith.

14

In order to deter such abuses of the judicial process, Plaintiffs’ counsel shall pay

15

monetary sanctions into the Court in the amount of $250 no later than August 18, 2015.

16

The amount of such sanctions shall double if the Court does not receive payment by its

17

close of business on that date.
In addition, the Court finds cause to believe that Plaintiffs’ counsel has engaged in

18
19

unprofessional conduct in the practice of law before this Court, and hereby refers the

20

matter to the Court’s Standing Committee on Professional Conduct, pursuant to Civil

21

Local Rule 11-6(a)(1).

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
5

1

CONCLUSION

2

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs’ counsel shall pay sanctions to the Court

3

in the amount of $250, due no later than August 18, 2015, after which time the amount of

4

sanctions shall double. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall file written proof of payment to the Court

5

no later than two days after payment is made. The matter is also referred to the Court’s

6

Standing Committee on Professional Conduct for further investigation.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dated: 08/11/15

_____________________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

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

6