Matoza v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc. et al

Filing 87

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 09/14/2017. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 HENRY MATOZA, Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 THOR INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS Re: Dkt. No. 75 Defendants. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 17-cv-01971-MMC 12 13 Before the Court is plaintiff Henry Matoza’s (“Matoza”) motion, filed August 20, 14 2017, pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, by which Matoza asks 15 the Court to impose sanctions on defendants’ counsel Phil John Montoya, Jr. (“Montoya”) 16 and his law firm, Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP.1 Counsel have filed 17 opposition. Matoza has not filed a reply. 18 Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the 19 motion, the Court deems the matter appropriate for determination thereon, VACATES the 20 hearing scheduled for September 29, 2017, and, for the reasons set forth below, finds 21 Matoza has not shown the conduct on which he relies is sanctionable. 22 Matoza contends a declaration and brief submitted by Montoya in support of 23 APCO’s and WSSL’s motions to compel arbitration were filed in violation of Rule 11(b)(3), 24 which requires an attorney filing a paper with the Court “certif[y] that to the best of [his] 25 26 27 28 1 Montoya and his firm represent four of the six remaining defendants in the above-titled action, namely, Automobile Protection Corporation (“APCO”), Warranty Support Services, LLC (“WSSL”), APCO Holdings, LLC, and Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan. 1 knowledge, information, and belief, formed after a reasonable inquiry under the 2 circumstances” that the “factual contentions have evidentiary support” and that the “legal 3 contentions are warranted by existing law.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3). Matoza, 4 however, has failed to show the statements in the declaration he challenges were made 5 without evidentiary support, nor has Matoza shown the case he contends “is fatal to 6 APCO and WSSL’s [motions to compel]” and, as such, should have been cited in 7 Montoya’s brief (see Mot. at 8:14-15 (citing McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 2 Cal. 5th 945 8 (2017)), has any bearing on a case where, as here, the arbitration agreement contains no 9 clause purporting to “preclude [Matoza] from seeking public injunctive relief in any forum.” 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 See McGill, 2 Cal. 5th at 956 (emphasis omitted). Accordingly, Matoza’s motion for sanctions is hereby DENIED. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: September 14, 2017 MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?