Nguyen et al v. Wells Fargo, N.A. et al

Filing 80

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting in Part and Denying in Part 78 Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Sanctions. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/19/2023)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Case 3:20-cv-07991-EMC Document 80 Filed 01/19/23 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

PHUONG T. NGUYEN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 20-cv-07991-EMC

v.
WELLS FARGO, N.A., et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
SANCTIONS
Docket No. 78

12
13
14

Previously, the Court granted the Wells Fargo Defendants’ motion for sanctions against

15

Ms. Nguyen and ordered Ms. Nguyen to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,620. This

16

figure represented the attorney’s fees incurred by the Wells Fargo Defendants to discover the fraud

17

and bring the issue to the Court. See Docket No. 77 (order). Currently pending before the Court

18

is Ms. Nguyen’s motion for relief from the sanctions order. Having considered the papers

19

submitted, the Court finds the matter suitable for resolution without oral argument. The motion

20

for relief is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

21

In her motion, Ms. Nguyen invokes Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) in support of

22

her position. That rule provides that a “court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order,

23

or proceeding for . . . (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). The

24

Wells Fargo Defendants argue that Rule 60(b)(6) allows for relief only where there are

25

extraordinary circumstances, which are not present here. See, e.g., Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d

26

737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (“A party moving for relief under Rule 60(b)(6) ‘must demonstrate both

27

injury and circumstances beyond his control that prevented him from proceeding with the action in

28

a proper fashion.’ We have cautioned that this Rule is to be ‘used sparingly as an equitable

Case 3:20-cv-07991-EMC Document 80 Filed 01/19/23 Page 2 of 3

1

remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances

2

prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.’”).
The Court largely agrees. For example, Ms. Nguyen argues that the sanctions order in

United States District Court
Northern District of California

3
4

favor of the Wells Fargo Defendants was improper because (1) it was the federal government, and

5

not the Wells Fargo Defendants, that asked to relate Nguyen I and Nguyen II, and thus (2) Nguyen

6

DDS’s opposition to relation could had no impact, and in fact had no impact, on the Wells Fargo

7

Defendants. This argument lacks merit. Simply because it was the federal government that

8

moved to relate does not mean that the Wells Fargo Defendants had no interest in whether the

9

cases would be related. The Court credits the Wells Fargo Defendants’ representation that they

10

did in fact have an interest in having the cases related and believed that they should be related

11

because the relation requirement had clearly been met – i.e., Nguyen I and Nguyen II are

12

effectively the same case as both are based on the same state court case.
Ms. Nguyen also argues that the Wells Fargo Defendants should not be entitled to any

13
14

monetary award because they failed to meet and confer with her about the Nguyen DDS

15

opposition brief. But the Wells Fargo Defendants did not have an obligation to meet and confer

16

with her, and, in any event, once Wells Fargo moved for sanctions, Ms. Nguyen could have

17

promptly withdrawn the Nguyen DDS opposition brief rather than trying to defend it.
Ms. Nguyen’s final argument is that the sanctions award should be vacated because she

18
19

cannot afford it. According to Ms. Nguyen, she lost her dental business and, at some unidentified

20

point, she broke her hand (allegedly after she fainted and fell based on mental anguish she suffered

21

as a result of Defendants’ alleged wrongdoing) such that she can only work part time. The Wells

22

Fargo Defendants correctly note that Ms. Nguyen could have argued in her opposition to the

23

motion for sanctions that she was financially unable to pay for a monetary sanctions award. She

24

did not do so. Nonetheless, in the interests of justice, the Court will reduce the amount of the

25

award to $800.00.

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

Case 3:20-cv-07991-EMC Document 80 Filed 01/19/23 Page 3 of 3

1
2
3

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, Ms. Nguyen’s motion for relief is granted in
part and denied in part.
This order disposes of Docket No. 78.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: January 19, 2023

8
9
10

______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

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
3