Les Fields/C.C.H.I. Insurance Services v. Hines et al.,
Filing
94
ORDER for Sanctions [re 79 Order]. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 11/28/2016. (mejlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/28/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
LES FIELDS/C.C.H.I. INSURANCE
SERVICES,
Case No. 15-cv-03728-MEJ
8
Plaintiff,
ORDER FOR SANCTIONS
v.
9
STUART M HINES, et al.,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Defendants.
12
13
INTRODUCTION
14
After Plaintiff Les Field/C.C.H.I Insurance Services’ (“Plaintiff”) repeated failures to
15
follow Court orders, meet mandatory deadlines, and oppose Defendants Stuart Hines’ (“Hines”)
16
and the InterRemedy Defendants’1 (together, “Defendants”) Motions for Summary Judgment, the
17
Court issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) why it should not dismiss the action for failure to
18
prosecute and failure to comply with Court deadlines. OSC, Dkt. No. 75. Based on Plaintiff’s
19
response to the OSC, the Court ordered Plaintiff to make certain payments to the Clerk of the
20
Court, and further ordered Plaintiff and his counsel to jointly pay to Defendants the reasonable
21
attorneys’ fees and costs they incurred in drafting and filing their response to the Court’s OSC and
22
their Replies to the Oppositions. Pl.’s Resp. to OSC, Dkt. No. 78; Order Discharging OSC at 3,
23
Dkt. No. 79. For the reasons set forth below, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to pay Defendants a
24
total of $7,164.50 in attorneys’ fees and costs.
DISCUSSION
25
Under these circumstances, the Court may sanction Plaintiff and his counsel pursuant to its
26
27
1
28
The InterRemedy Defendants are InterRemedy Insurance Services, LLC; Deborah Canadas;
Joyce Sykes McGuire; and Kim Willoughby.
1
inherent authority and to 28 U.S.C. § 1927. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 41-42, 50
2
(1991); Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 991 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court may impose sanctions under
3
its inherent power because Plaintiff repeatedly has willfully disobeyed Court orders. See Octane
4
Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749, 1758 (2014) (citation omitted).
5
Under § 1927, an attorney “who so multiplies the proceedings . . . unreasonably and vexatiously
6
may be required by the Court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees
7
reasonably incurred because of such conduct.” “The key term in [§ 1927] is ‘vexatiously’;
8
carelessly, negligently, or unreasonably multiplying the proceedings is not enough.” In re
9
Girardi, 611 F.3d 1027, 1061 (9th Cir. 2010). A “finding that the attorney recklessly or
intentionally misled the court is sufficient to impose sanctions under § 1927 . . . .” Id. (citations
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
omitted).
On September 8, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to
12
13
respond to Defendants’ two Motions for Summary Judgment. Sept. 8, 2016 Order, Dkt. No. 16. 2
14
In doing so, the Court extended the deadline for Plaintiff to file his oppositions by two weeks, to
15
September 22, 2016. Id. The Court also ordered Plaintiff to “carefully review his pleadings to
16
ensure they comply with all applicable Local Rules, Standing Orders, Case Management Orders,
17
and Prior Orders.” Id. Plaintiff did not file his oppositions on September 22, 2016. On
18
September 26, 2016, the Court issued the OSC. In response, Plaintiff timely responded to the
19
OSC by filing one of the two oppositions that had been due on September 22, 2016 and informed
20
the Court he would file the second opposition at his convenience in the next few days. See Pl.’s
21
Resp. ¶ 9, Dkt. No. 78 (“Presently, I am doing the final edit and organization for filing the
22
Response to Defendant InterRemedy’s et al. Summary Judgment Motion. I plan to file on October
23
4, 2016, but no later than October 5, 2016.” (emphasis in original)). Plaintiff explained he had
24
been unable to timely file his oppositions by the September 22 Court-ordered deadline for doing
25
so because his client had been having numerous medical problems since November 2014, and “fell
26
27
28
2
The Court identified the numerous Court orders Plaintiff disobeyed in its OSC, and bases this
order of sanctions on Plaintiff’s willful disobedience of the September 8, 2016 Order.
2
1
ill and was unable to focus or concentrate” on completing his declaration “during the week of
2
September 19, 2016.” Id. ¶ 7. While Plaintiff assured the Court he did not delay “to obtain an
3
unfair advantage in this litigation,” he fails to demonstrate that his failure to comply with the
4
Court’s Order was anything but willful. The fact his client fell ill 3 days before the extended
5
September 22 deadline in no way explains why Plaintiff was unable to meet the deadline, request
6
another extension based on exigent circumstances, or inform Defendants and the Court of the
7
situation. It also fails to explain counsel’s lack of professional courtesy and failure to follow
8
Court orders and meet his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 obligations.3
The policy underlying the power to impose sanctions is:
9
10
the need to preserve the integrity of the judicial process in order to
retain confidence that the process works to uncover the truth . . . .
The courts must protect the integrity of the judicial process because,
[a]s soon as the process falters . . . the people are then justified in
abandoning support for the system. Sanctions are available to the
district courts not merely to penalize those whose conduct may be
deemed to warrant such a sanction, but to deter those who might be
tempted to such conduct in the absence of such a deterrent.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
Oracle Am., Inc. v. Terix Computer Co., Inc., 2015 WL 2398993, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 19, 2015)
16
(internal citations and quotation marks omitted). These powers, however, “must be exercised with
17
restraint and discretion.” Chambers, 501 U.S. at 44. The “primary aspect of that discretion is the
18
ability to fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses the judicial process.” Id. at 44-
19
45. The Court’s sanction required Plaintiff and his counsel to pay the reasonable attorneys’ fees
20
and costs Defendants incurred in filing their Reply briefs to address Plaintiff’s failure to obey its
21
orders and his abuse of the judicial process. See Order Discharging OSC. In response,
22
Defendants filed declarations describing the fees and costs they incurred to complete these
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
In addition, Plaintiff violated the Court’s order requiring him to ensure his pleadings complied
with the Local Rules. In violation of Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiff filed evidentiary objections
that were not contained within his Opposition memoranda. See Evid. Obj. to Hines Mot., Dkt. No.
77-8; Evid. Obj. to InterRemedy Mot., Dkt. No. 80-2. As further addressed in the Court’s
September 8, 2016, Plaintiff’s pleadings were deficient in many other ways. See Order re: Summ.
J., Dkt. No. 92. Plaintiff also violated Local Rule 7-5(b), which requires that declarations “contain
only facts, must conform as much as possible to the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e), and
must avoid conclusions and argument.” Id. at 4-7.
3
1
documents. See Lucier Decl., Dkt. No. 86 (requesting $20,812.50 in fees and $86.60 in costs on
2
behalf of Defendant Hines); Aguilar Decl., Dkt. No. 87 (requesting $11,305 in fees and $77.90 in
3
costs on behalf of the InterRemedy Defendants). Plaintiff objects that Defendants’ requests are
4
not reasonable. Pl.’s Obj., Dkt. No. 88.
5
The Court parsed through Plaintiff’s Oppositions and the materials submitted in support of
6
it and appreciates that responding to those documents was challenging and time-consuming.
7
While the amount requested by Defendants is not unreasonable (especially in light of these facts),
8
the Court finds they exceed the appropriate sanction the Court may impose in its discretion. The
9
Court accordingly ORDERS Plaintiff and his counsel to pay attorneys’ fees and costs in the
amounts of $3,586.60 to Defendant Hines and $3,577.90 to the InterRemedy Defendants.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Payment shall be made within 90 days of this Order. Plaintiff shall file a proof of payment with
12
the Court by the same date. Failure to make these payments will incur a $100 penalty per day of
13
non-compliance.
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16
17
18
Dated: November 28, 2016
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?