Lozano v. Cabrera et al
Filing
86
ORDER granting Rule 11 sanctions and sanctions under 28 USC 1927. Signed by Judge John A. Houston on 3/02/2022.(jpp)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
Case No.: 14cv00333 JAH-RBB
Enrique Lozano,
Plaintiff,
12
13
v.
14
ORDER GRANTING RULE 11
SANCTIONS AND SANCTIONS
UNDER 28 U.S.C. §1927
Julio Yee Cabrera, et. al.,
Defendant.
15
16
17
INTRODUCTION
18
In March 2001, Plaintiff filed a cause of action against Defendants Julio Yee Cabrera
19
and Enrique Wong Vazquez asserting violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
20
(“ADA”), Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh”), California’s Disabled Persons Act
21
(“CDPA”), and negligence.
22
agreement in which they agreed the district court retained jurisdiction to enforce the
23
agreement. The court approved the dismissal of the action on September 18, 2001.
The parties settled the action pursuant to a settlement
24
On February 12, 2014, Plaintiff filed a complaint for damages and injunctive relief
25
for violations of the ADA, Unruh and the CDPA against Cabrera and Vazquez in the instant
26
27
28
1
14cv00333 JAH-RBB
1
action.1 Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and later, filed
2
a motion seeking attorney’s fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1927.
3
Finding the Court lacked jurisdiction, this Court granted Defendants’ motion to
4
dismiss without prejudice and the Clerk of Court entered judgment. Plaintiff filed a notice
5
of appeal of the judgment. Thereafter, Defendants filed a motion for issuance of Rule 11
6
sanctions. This Court granted the motion for sanctions and, later, denied the motion for
7
issuance of sanctions pursuant to section 1927. Plaintiff appealed the Court’s order
8
granting sanctions.
9
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its mandate affirming the dismissal2 but
10
vacating the sanctions award and remanding the matter. In its order spreading the mandate,
11
this Court permitted the parties to file simultaneous supplemental briefing and responsive
12
pleadings addressing the motions for sanctions.
13
Defendants filed a supplemental brief. Instead of filing a supplemental brief,
14
Plaintiff filed a response to Defendants’ brief and filed a request for judicial notice of the
15
arguments taken in the legal briefs filed in the appeal.3 Defendants filed a response to
16
Plaintiff’s brief and a notice of recent authority.
17
DISCUSSION
18
In its decision vacating the sanctions award, the Ninth Circuit determined this Court
19
invoked the wrong procedural mechanism to support the sanctions imposed because the
20
Court considered extra-pleadings conduct in awarding sanctions under Rule 11. The Ninth
21
Circuit remanded the matter to allow this Court to consider whether to award sanctions
22
under section 1927 or to clarify its reasons for imposing sanctions under Rule 11.
23
Defendants seek sanctions under both Rule 11 and section 1927. Defendants argue
24
the order granting Rule 11 sanctions should stand without reduction because Plaintiff
25
26
27
28
1
Plaintiff also named Beamspeed, LLC who was later dismissed from the action.
The Ninth Circuit disagreed with the Court’s conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction but found the
lawsuit was barred by the prior settlement.
3
The Court grants the request to take judicial notice.
2
2
14cv00333 JAH-RBB
1
violated the prior settlement agreement and stipulation for dismissal by filing this action.
2
They further argue the Court’s prior findings of misconduct support additional sanctions
3
under section 1927. Plaintiff argues there has been no sanctionable conduct. He suggests
4
the Ninth Circuit erred in ruling the prior settlement agreement barred this action and
5
maintains he had a colorable legal argument to support the filing of the action. He also
6
contends section 1927 sanctions are unwarranted because the record does not support this
7
Court’s prior findings and even if it did, it does not support sanctions.
8
I. Rule 11
9
Rule 11 imposes a duty on attorneys or unrepresented parties, to certify by their
10
signature, the pleading is “not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass,
11
cause unnecessary delay or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;” is “warranted by
12
existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing
13
law or for establishing new law;” “the factual contentions have evidentiary support” and
14
“the denials of factual contentions are warranted.” FED.R.CIV.P. 11(b). The purpose of
15
this rule is to curb baseless filings. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 397-
16
98 (1990). Sanctions under Rule 11 must be appropriate and “limited to what suffices to
17
deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct.” FED.R.CIV.P. 11(c). They may
18
include “payment of the reasonable attorney’s fees and other expenses resulting from the
19
violation.” Id.
20
The record demonstrates sanctions are appropriate under Rule 11 due to Plaintiff and
21
Plaintiff’s counsel’s action in filing and maintaining this baseless lawsuit. The record
22
reflects Plaintiff and his law firm initiated a nearly identical complaint against the same
23
defendants addressing the exact parking space at issue in the prior action, in which Plaintiff
24
was represented by the same counsel. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel knew or were in the
25
best position to know that Plaintiff settled with the same defendants and entered an
26
agreement for retention of jurisdiction over enforcement of the settlement agreement. The
27
parties agreed, in the settlement agreement, that the designated disabled parking space
28
complied with the ADA guidelines. Additionally, the plain language of the stipulation for
3
14cv00333 JAH-RBB
1
dismissal clearly indicates the court retained jurisdiction over “all disputes between
2
(among) the parties arising out of the settlement agreement.” See Doc. No. 19-3 at 27. In
3
light of the clear language of the stipulation for dismissal, Plaintiff had no colorable legal
4
argument to support filing this action. As such, the Court finds the lawsuit was not legally
5
tenable and Rule 11 sanctions are warranted.
6
II. Section 1927
7
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1927, “[a]ny attorney… who so multiplies the
8
proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to
9
satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred
10
because of such conduct.” Sanctions are permitted when an attorney intends to harass, or
11
either knowingly or recklessly makes frivolous arguments. B.K.B. v. Maui Police Dept.,
12
276 F.3d 1091, 1107 (9th Cir. 2002). A fee award under section 1927 may include “excess
13
costs, expenses and attorney’s fees reasonably incurred because of” the sanctionable
14
conduct. 28 U.S.C. § 1927.
15
Plaintiff’s counsels’ conduct of ignoring Defendants’ counsel’s repeated requests for
16
a copy of the settlement agreement and then doubling the settlement demand when they
17
finally provided a copy of the agreement to Defendant’s counsel, rather than dismissing
18
the action, unreasonably multiplied proceedings in this matter. Counsel’s conduct supports
19
sanctions under section 1927.
20
Defendants seek $29,855 which represent the fees incurred from the time they first
21
requested the settlement agreement from Plaintiff’s counsel through the filing of the motion
22
for sanctions. The Court finds that amount represents fees reasonably incurred as a result
23
of counsel’s sanctionable conduct.
24
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
25
1.
Defendants’ motion for Rule 11 sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff and
26
Plaintiff’s counsel shall pay Defendants’ counsel $15,000.
27
//
28
4
14cv00333 JAH-RBB
1
2.
Defendant’ motion for attorney’s fees is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s counsel shall
2
pay Defendants’ counsel $29,855.
3
DATED: March 2, 2022
4
5
_________________________________
JOHN A. HOUSTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
14cv00333 JAH-RBB
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?