Jones v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems et al

Filing 31

ORDER re 10 DENYING Motion for Sanctions in case 5:10-cv-00034-LHK; related to case 5:09-cv-05113. Signed by Judge Koh on 9/8/2010. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/8/2010)

Jones v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems et al

Doc. 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On January 21, 2010, The Honorable James Ware dismissed pro se Plaintiff Sylvia Jones's Complaint in this case (10-CV-0034) as "duplicative" of another case brought by Plaintiff (09-CV05113). See Jan. 21, 2010 Order Granting Pl.'s App. to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Dismissing Compl. as Duplicative [dkt. #7]. The Clerk closed this case (10-cv-0034) on January 21, 2010. Although closed, this case was reassigned to this Court on August 30, 2010 pursuant to an Order relating this case to 09-CV-05113. On April 6, 2010, Plaintiff made a motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(1)-(2) on the grounds that attorneys Brian Gunn, Stuart Wolfe, Kimberly Paese and the law firm of Wolfe & Wyman LLP (legal counsel for co-Defendant GMAC Mortgage LLC) 1
Case No.: 10-CV-0034-LHK ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Dockets.Justia.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION SYLVIA JONES, Plaintiff, v. MORTGAGEIT, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 10-CV-0034-LHK ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS; DENYING DEFENDANT GMAC MORTGAGE LLC'S REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY FEES (re: docket #10 and #11)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

violated Civil Local Rule 11-4(c), which prohibits ex parte communication with a District Judge or her staff.1 Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that she was never provided a copy of a January 22, 2010 letter sent to the Court by GMAC Mortgage LLC's legal counsel informing this Court of a related Superior Court action in Santa Clara Superior Court. See Jan. 22, 2010 Letter from Wolfe & Wyman LLP ("Letter") [dkt. #9]. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this motion suitable for determination without oral argument. Defendant GMAC Mortgage LLC argues: 1) there was no ex parte communication because the Letter indicated that Plaintiff was provided a carbon copy; and 2) in any event, the Letter merely informed the Court of a related Superior Court action and does not constitute sanctionable conduct. Defendants are correct that the Letter indicated that Plaintiff was provided a carbon copy. See Letter at 2 ("cc: Ms. Sylvia Jones"). Thus, there was no ex parte communication. In addition, although letters from parties are generally prohibited in "pending cases," the Court notes that this case was actually closed at the time the Letter was sent and thus the case was not "pending." Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(1)-(2) provides: (b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper -- whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it -- an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances: (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
1

Civil Local Rule 11-4(c) provides: (c) Prohibition against Ex Parte Communication. Except as otherwise provided by law, these Local Rules or otherwise ordered by the Court, attorneys or parties to any action must refrain from making telephone calls or writing letters or sending copies of communications between counsel to the assigned Judge or the Judge's law clerks or otherwise communicating with a Judge or the Judge's staff regarding a pending matter, without prior notice to opposing counsel. 2

Case No.: 10-CV-0034-LHK ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law. The Court can discern no "improper purpose" in the Letter, and Plaintiff points to none in her motion. The Letter merely informs the Court of a related action in Santa Clara Superior Court. Moreover, the Letter was not even sent until after Judge Ware dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint and the Clerk terminated the case. The sending of the Letter does not indicate unprofessional conduct or improper purpose on behalf of GMAC Mortgage LLC's legal counsel. Thus, there is no violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) or the Court's Local Rules, and the Court will not issue sanctions. Counsel for GMAC Mortgage LLC seek an award for the reasonable expenses and attorney fees incurred in opposing the motion for sanctions. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(2), "If warranted, the court may award to the prevailing party the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred for the motion." (emphasis added) The Court does not find that the circumstances of this motion warrant an award of attorney's fees. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for sanctions is DENIED. GMAC Mortgage LLC's request for attorney fees is also DENIED. The Court reminds Plaintiff that this case (10-CV-0034) is closed, and that all future filings should be in her open case (09-CV-05113). IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 8, 2010

_________________________________ LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge

3
Case No.: 10-CV-0034-LHK ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS