Moralez v. Whole Foods Market, Inc.

Filing 37

ORDER on Sanctions re 35 Order on Continuance and 36 Declaration in Opposition filed by Francisca Moralez. Counsel for Defendant is required to provide certain information to the Court, which the Court will use to determine how much to requir e Counsel for Plaintiff to pay in sanctions. The motion to dismiss is taken under submission without oral argument, but the hearing is NOT vacated to allow time for Plaintiff's Counsel to appear (as ordered) and explain why sanctions should not be imposed. Order to Show Cause Hearing is therefore set for 8/28/2015 10:00 AM. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on August 25, 2015. (sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/25/2015)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

FRANCISCA MORALEZ,
Plaintiff,

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

9
10

v.

11

WHOLE FOODS MARKET CALIFORNIA,
INC.,

12

Defendant.

13
14

This Order Relates To:

15
16

ORDER ON CONTINUANCE OF MOTION TO
DISMISS

17

) Case No. 3:14-cv-5022 SC
)
) ORDER ON SANCTIONS AND
) VACATING HEARING
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

18
19

The Court now turns to its former Order on Continuance of

20

Motion to Dismiss, dated August 17, 2015, ECF No. 35 ("Continuance

21

Order").

22

cause why it should not be sanctioned and/or required to pay the

23

attorneys' fees connected directly with Defendant's extra expense.

24

Plaintiff complied.

25

Therein, the Court ordered Counsel for Plaintiff to show

ECF No. 36.

The Court is not satisfied with the showing of cause, noting

26

that Plaintiff seeks to shift part of the blame to Defendant, which

27

even if true (the Court declines to opine) does not explain why

28

Plaintiff waited so long to request an extension Plaintiff knew in

1

advance it would need.

The Court further finds that the tone

2

indicates Counsel does not recognize its error and may repeat the

3

error absent action by the Court.

4

the need for an extension comes from Plaintiff's repeated decision

5

to take on new cases with the working presumption that scheduling

6

trial in another, new case should merit another extension by

7

opposing counsel or the Court.

8

11(b)(1), the Court finds that actions by Counsel for Plaintiff in

9

intentionally waiting to file for a predictable extension, missing

The Court is also cognizant that

Finally, per Fed R. Civ. P.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

the deadline, and filing after the deadline all could be reasonably

11

expected to cause unnecessary delay and needlessly increase the

12

cost of litigation.

13

the rules by Plaintiff, who previously and improperly filed a

14

Second Amended Complaint without leave of the Court even though

15

such leave was required.

16

highest levels of bad faith, they do show negligence and disregard

17

for the Court's rules enough that the Court will not stand idly by.

18

The Court has therefore decided that sanctions are appropriate

19

here to ensure proper enforcement of its own rules, in light of the

20

terms of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1).

21

proper and will be levied in the form of the cost of the attorneys'

22

fees required and directly connected with (and only with)

23

Defendant's filing of the one-page Reply at ECF No. 30.

24

R. Civ. P. 11(c)(3)-(5).

25

furbish an appropriate, reasonably tailored bill to the Court

26

within 10 days of this order.

27

for Plaintiff to pay an appropriate amount.

28

notice of payment via ECF within 30 days of the date of that order.

Moreover, this was the second infraction of

While these facts may not rise to the

Sanctions are procedurally

See Fed.

Counsel for Defendant is ORDERED to

The Court will then order Counsel

2

Plaintiff must file a

1

The Court will allow Counsel for Plaintiff a final chance to

2

appear and explain why the Court should not ultimately enter this

3

sanction.

4

already scheduled this Friday, August 28, 2015.

5

ordered herein are accordingly HELD IN ABEYANCE pending the results

6

of the hearing.

7

Counsel is therefore ORDERED to appear at the hearing
The sanctions

Meanwhile, the Court has concluded that the substance of the

8

motion it was to otherwise consider at Friday's hearing is

9

appropriate for resolution without oral argument pursuant to Civil

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

Local Rule 7-1(b).

Therefore, the hearing on Friday, August 28,

11

2015 is hereby VACATED with respect to that motion only and the

12

substantive motion is deemed to be taken under submission.

13

hearing shall remain on calendar for the purposes of considering

14

whether sanctions should be levied.

The

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18
19

Dated: August 25, 2015

____________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3