Fotinos v. Fotinos et al

Filing 92


Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 6 MICHELE FOTINOS, on behalf of herself and as Guardian ad Litem for her minor children, R.F. and A.F., Plaintiff, 7 v. 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 JOHN FOTINOS; DAWN GROVER; RENEE LA FARGE; BONNIE MILLER; KAMALA HARRIS, Attorney General; JAYNE KIM, Chief Trial Counsel, State Bar of California; ROBYN PITTS, City of Belmont Police Officer; MARK REED, San Mateo County Deputy Sheriff; PATRICK CAREY, San Mateo County Deputy Sheriff; SHANNON MORGAN; CITY OF BELMONT; COUNTY OF SAN MATEO; and RENEE LAFARGE, 15 16 No. C 12-953 CW ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (Docket Nos. 87 & 88) AND STRIKING IMPROPERLY FILED DOCUMENTS (Docket Nos. 87-1, 87-2 & 87-3) Defendant. ________________________________/ 17 18 19 20 I. Ex Parte Application for Extension of Time to File Second Amended Complaint On March 22, 2013, the Court entered an order dismissing all 21 of Plaintiff’s federal claims. 22 Plaintiff fourteen days to amend some of her federal claims. 23 Court advised Plaintiff that if she failed to do so, her federal 24 claims would be dismissed with prejudice and her state claims 25 would be dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court. 26 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (2AC) was due by 27 April 5, 2013. 28 In that order, the Court granted The 1 On April 9, 2013, Plaintiff filed an “Ex Parte Motion for 2 Leave to File Second Amended Supplemental Complaint 3 days late.” 3 Docket No. 87. 4 Carey and Shannon Morgan (San Mateo County Defendants) and 5 Defendant Bonnie Miller oppose the motion. Defendants County of San Mateo, Mark Reed, Patrick 6 The Court notes that this request is part of an ongoing 7 pattern of Plaintiff’s counsel seeking extensions of time after a 8 deadline has passed. 9 Docket No. 63 (application for extension of time filed on the date See Docket Nos. 44, 65, 85, 87, 88; see also United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 the filing was due). 11 provides that a motion for extension of time “made after the time 12 has expired” may be granted “if the party failed to act because of 13 excusable neglect.” 14 Plaintiff for failing to meet the Court’s deadlines is that 15 counsel is busy working with other clients on other matters. 16 e.g., Docket No. 65 at ¶4 (“I ended up on Friday, July 6, 2012, 17 and Saturday, July 7, 2012, working on matters for two other 18 clients . . .); Docket No. 87 at ¶3 (discussing counsel’s decision 19 to “[take] on the task of representing the key witness of [her] 20 client for whom [she] recently filed a civil rights action in the 21 Central District of CA.”). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) However, the primary reason provided by See, 22 The California Rules of Professional Conduct provide, “A 23 member shall not intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly fail to 24 perform legal services with competence.” 25 Conduct 3-110(A). 26 legal service shall mean to apply the 1) diligence, 2) learning 27 and skill, and 3) mental, emotional, and physical ability 28 reasonably necessary for the performance of such service.” 2 Cal. Rule of Prof. “For purposes of this rule, ‘competence’ in any Id. at 1 3-110(B). 2 consider her obligations to current clients before taking on 3 additional clients or cases, and to ensure that she can meet the 4 deadlines in all of her existing cases. 5 The Court interprets this rule to require counsel to The Court will GRANT Plaintiff’s ex parte application for 6 extension of time to file her 2AC. 7 counsel is admonished of her duty to provide competent service to 8 her client, including her duty to meet the Court’s deadlines. 9 Plaintiff shall file her 2AC within one day of the date of this (Docket No. 87) United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 order. 11 complaint within twenty-one days thereafter. 12 II. However, Defendants may answer or move to dismiss the amended Second Ex Parte Application for Extension of Time Re: Documents Containing Confidential Information 13 14 On March 19, 2013, the Court issued an order directing 15 Plaintiff to take steps to ensure that her filings did not 16 improperly include confidential information on the public docket. 17 On April 1, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request for an 18 extension of time until April 9, 2013 to comply with the Court’s 19 March 19, 2013 order. 20 parte application seeking an extension of the April 9 deadline to 21 April 16, 2013. 22 “could not complete the redaction and other tasks related to 23 preserving the confidentiality of the children even in the extra 24 time which the Court granted because of the demands of her law 25 practice.” 26 of counsel’s obligation to provide competent service to her 27 clients. 28 application for an extension of time to April 16, 2013 (Docket No. On April 10, 2013, Plaintiff filed an ex In that application, counsel states that she As noted above, this excuse is not well-taken in light Nonetheless, the Court will GRANT Plaintiff’s ex parte 3 1 88). 2 sanctions including, but not limited to, dismissal of Plaintiff’s 3 case. 4 III. Request to Substitute Redacted Amended Complaint 5 Any future failure to meet Court deadlines may result in At least twice, this Court has admonished Plaintiff of the 6 need to refer to minor children by their initials rather than 7 their full names. 8 Plaintiff’s continued use of minor children’s full names and 9 inclusion of other personally identifying and sensitive See Docket Nos. 45 and 83. Because of United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 information related to minor children, the Court temporarily 11 sealed the entire docket on March 19, 2013 and ordered Plaintiff 12 to conduct a review of all of her filings and to take steps to 13 ensure that such information is not included on the public docket. 14 Docket No. 83. 15 that includes the full names of her minor children. 16 87-1, 87-2 and 87-3. 17 “request to substitute” a redacted 2AC. 18 The Court grants this request. Nonetheless, Plaintiff has filed a proposed 2AC Docket Nos. Recognizing this error, counsel has filed a (Docket No. 88) Further, because Docket Nos. 19 87-1, 87-2, and 87-3 contain the full names of Plaintiff’s minor 20 children, the Court STRIKES those documents and directs the Clerk 21 to delete them from the public docket. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 26 Dated: 4/12/2013 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 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?