Solo et al v. American Association of University Women et al
Filing
116
ORDER Granting 112 Motion for Sanctions. This sanction is levied solely against plaintiff's counsel Peter Schey. Consequently, Mr. Schey shall pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,578.50, to be delivered directly to AAUW by 09/14/2018. Such costs are not to be charged to Mr. Schey's client or reimbursed out of any settlement or judgment that may occur in the future. Signed by Magistrate Judge Clinton Averitte on 08/31/2018. (ajs)
1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
4
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Devyn SOLO,
Case No.: 15-cv-1356-WQH-AGS
5
Plaintiff,
6
v.
7
AMERICAN ASSOCIATE OF
8
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS
UNIVERSITY WOMEN, et al.,
9
Defendants.
10
11
Plaintiff’s counsel has violated Court orders four times. In an effort to avoid
12
responsibility, he proffers several excuses, none of which are valid. 1 His rationalization is
13
that he experienced failures with his email and was involved in other litigation. He even
14
attempts to shift blame to opposing counsel by stating they should have notified him.
15
This, however, is Federal Court and an attorney licensed to practice in Federal Court
16
cannot avoid his responsibilities to his client, to the Court, and to opposing counsel so
17
easily. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, the Court grants defendant’s request
18
for sanctions.
19
BACKGROUND
20
The Court, after all parties announced they were available on July 27, 2018, set that
21
date for the Early Neutral Evaluation and Case Management Conference. (ECF No. 105.)
22
The Court ordered the parties to submit confidential settlement statements to chambers, but
23
plaintiff’s counsel failed to timely submit such a statement. (See ECF No. 104.) Counsel
24
25
26
1
27
improper and would not be considered. (See ECF No. 115.) However, the Court
28
addresses some of the arguments made in that pleading.
The Court found that Mr. Schey’s August 13, 2018 pleading (ECF No. 111) was
1
15-cv-1356-WQH-AGS
1
ultimately made the submission after the Court ordered him to show cause.2 (See id.) Then,
2
on July 25, 2018, just two days before the ENE, the parties moved to continue the ENE for
3
the second time. (See ECF Nos. 90 & 106.) This time, the parties needed to change the
4
ENE date because plaintiff’s counsel was no longer able to attend on July 27, 2018. (See
5
ECF No. 106.) The Court set a July 26, 2018 telephonic hearing on the motion to continue
6
and ordered Mr. Schey to initiate a joint call into chambers for the telephonic hearing on
7
the parties’ motion to continue. (ECF No. 107.) Mr. Schey failed to appear despite the fact
8
the continuance was sought at his request. (See ECF No. 108.)
9
The Court then ordered Mr. Schey, by July 30, 2018, to file a declaration informing
10
the Court why he did not attend the telephonic hearing and set an attorneys-only status
11
conference for July 31, 2018. (See id.) Again, Mr. Schey failed to follow this Court’s order
12
and submitted nothing.
13
Considering plaintiff’s counsel’s record of nonappearance for these those two
14
matters, the July 31, 2018 status conference was vacated and an Order to Show Cause was
15
issued ordering Mr. Schey to attend a show cause hearing on August 8, 2018. (See ECF
16
No. 109.) Again, Mr. Schey failed to appear. (See id.) Based on this record, the Court
17
ordered AAUW to submit a fee petition for fees and costs incurred after the parties filed
18
the joint motion to continue the ENE on July 25, 2018. (See ECF No. 110.)
19
20
AAUW now seeks monetary sanctions against plaintiff in the amount of $3,578.50
as compensation for the costs incurred, based on the following fees and expenses:
21
22
23
2
Mr. Schey informed the Court that he inadvertently failed to timely file plaintiff’s
24
confidential settlement statement because of his travel abroad with limited access to the
25
internet and his involvement in the Flores v. Sessions settlement. (ECF No. 114, at 9.)
26
According to Mr. Schey, his position as class counsel for Flores required his “immediate
27
and round-the-clock involvement in monitoring compliance with the settlement at
28
dentention sites throughout the country.” (Id. at 8-9.)
2
15-cv-1356-WQH-AGS
1
Attorney’s fees
2
[13.6 hours x $250.00 hourly rate]
3
Travel
148.50
4
Parking
30.00
5
(See ECF No. 112.)
6
$3,400.00
LEGAL STANDARD
7
Magistrate judges have the authority to issue sanctions based on a party’s or
8
attorney’s failure to obey scheduling or pretrial orders. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
9
16(f) provides that if a party fails to obey the Court’s scheduling or other pretrial order,
10
“the court may issue any just orders, including those authorized by Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii)–
11
(vii).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(1). In addition to or in lieu of other sanctions, “the court must
12
order the party, its attorney, or both to pay the reasonable expenses–including attorney’s
13
fees–incurred because of any noncompliance with this rule, unless the noncompliance was
14
substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R.
15
Civ. P. 16(f)(2) (emphasis added).
16
Further, Civil Local Rule 83.1(a) permits the Court to order sanctions for failure to
17
comply with the Local Rules or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, Rule
18
83.1(a) provides:
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Failure of counsel or of any party to comply with these rules,
with the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, or with
any order of the court may be grounds for imposition by the court
of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or rule or within
the inherent power of the court, including, without limitation,
dismissal of any actions, entry of default, finding of contempt,
imposition of monetary sanctions or attorneys’ fees and costs,
and other lesser sanctions.
Civ. L.R. 83.1(a).
26
27
28
3
15-cv-1356-WQH-AGS
1
“A showing of bad faith 3 is not necessary when the Court issues sanctions under
2
Rule 16 or the Local Rules.” White v. Papoutis, No. 16-CV-02694-JLS-DHB, 2017 WL
3
1020585, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2017) (citing Lucas Auto. Eng’g, Inc. v.
4
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 275 F.3d 762, 769 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding appropriate the
5
district court’s issuance of sanctions under Federal Rule of Procedure 16 and the district
6
court’s local rules when the president of the plaintiff-business failed to appear at a
7
mediation session and gave no prior notice)). “Whether the party and/or its counsel
8
disobeyed the court order intentionally is impertinent; sanctions may be imposed when the
9
parties and their counsel disobey a court order.” Sanchez v. Brawley Elementary Sch. Dist.,
10
No. 14-CV-00564-GPC-PCL, 2016 WL 3074404, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 1, 2016) (citing
11
Lucas, 275 F.3d at 769).
12
13
14
15
16
DISCUSSION
Rule 16(f) dictates that AAUW’s motion for sanctions be granted against plaintiff’s
counsel in this case. Here, AAUW cooperated with plaintiff and filed a joint motion to
continue the July 27, 2018 ENE to attempt to accommodate Mr. Schey’s schedule. 4 Mr.
17
18
3
AAUW and Mr. Schey both cite Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) and
19
refer to the Court’s inherent power impose sanctions not conferred by rule or statute. (See
20
ECF Nos. 112-1, at 2, & 114, at 15.) Mr. Schey claims that, under the Chambers standard,
21
the Court’s inherent power to impose sanctions only applies to bad faith conduct. (See ECF
22
No. 114, at 16.) As such, Mr. Schey argues that sanctions are inappropriate because he did
23
not disobey the Court’s orders intentionally. (See id. at 18.) However, both parties are
24
incorrect in their application of the Chambers inherent power standard to this case. Mr.
25
Schey violated both the Local Rules and Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures.
26
4
Although he advised this Court he was available on July 27, 2018, Mr. Schey
27
subsequently either proposed or agreed to July 27, 2018 as a date for a hearing in the Flores
28
matter. (See ECF Nos. 103 & 112-2, at 10.) On June 13, 2018, this Court reset the ENE
4
15-cv-1356-WQH-AGS
1
Schey then violated three Court orders since the joint motion was filed and ultimately
2
caused AAUW to incur additional fees and costs. (See ECF Nos. 107-10.)
3
Mr. Schey first argues that he did not intentionally disregard the Court’s Orders. He
4
claims he “was not aware of those court Orders because his domain server stopped
5
forwarding his emails to his email account.” (ECF No. 114, at 4.) Mr. Schey claims he did
6
not receive the Court’s ECF Orders or become aware of the orders until August 11, 2018.
7
(See ECF No. 114, at 11.) “For technical reasons neither Plaintiffs’ counsel understands
8
[…],” the emails issued by the ECF system from July 25 to July 31, 2018, were not
9
forwarded to Mr. Schey’s email account. (Id. at 12-13.)
10
Mr. Schey, however, accepts no responsibility for his failure to adequately monitor
11
this case. Instead, he asserts he “bear[s] no fault whatsoever for the technical failure that
12
resulted in [his] being unaware of this Court’s Orders issued between July 25 and 31,
13
2018.” (Id. at 13.) Moreover, Mr. Schey claims that had he “been aware that emails were
14
not being forwarded to his email account, he would have reviewed PACER on a daily basis
15
to monitor filings in this case.” (Id. at 13 n.9.) Such excuses are typically inadequate. See
16
Lucore v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 16-CV-03099-AJB-KSC, 2017 WL 1354798, at *4 (S.D.
17
Cal. Apr. 13, 2017) (noting that parties “are responsible for checking the court docket
18
throughout the filing process to ensure they are aware of any notices of entry of orders
19
from the court”).
20
Further, the proffered excuse avoids addressing the problem. The Court finds it
21
especially troubling that Mr. Schey assumed the parties’ joint motion to continue the ENE
22
would be granted. Aside from his excuses that he was traveling, busy with commitments
23
to other cases, and having email issues, Mr. Schey has provided NO explanation why he
24
25
26
date to the proposed July 27, 2018 date. (ECF No. 105.) Even though he was or should
27
have been aware of the conflicting settings, Mr. Schey failed to advise the Court of his
28
conflict until the eleventh hour.
5
15-cv-1356-WQH-AGS
1
failed to check and see if the motion for continuance was granted. Mr. Schey was ordered
2
to appear before the Court for an ENE on July 27, 2018, and there is no dispute he was
3
aware of that setting. On July 25, 2018–just two days before the scheduled ENE date–the
4
parties filed a joint motion to continue the ENE date. According to Mr. Schey, July 25,
5
2018, is the date he started having problems with his email account and stopped receiving
6
notification of the Court’s orders. That Mr. Schey was not receiving email notifications
7
not only did not relieve him of his duty to check the court docket to see if the motion was
8
granted or denied, but it would have made it all the more important. It was entirely
9
inappropriate for counsel to assume the motion was granted and the ENE date continued.
10
Here, the motion was not immediately granted and the parties were ordered to appear on
11
July 26, 2018 for a telephonic hearing. When the joint motion to continue the ENE was
12
filed, Mr. Schey had two options, and assuming the motion would be granted was not one
13
of them. Mr. Schey could either verify that the motion was granted or appear for the
14
scheduled ENE. Instead, Mr. Schey took no action to check the docket and then failed to
15
appear for the hearing. An attorney who assumes the Court will grant a motion, whether
16
opposed or unopposed, makes that assumption at his own peril–especially in a case that is
17
more than three year years old.
18
After failing to appear for the August 8, 2018 show cause hearing, Mr. Schey filed
19
a self-serving declaration explaining why he was not responsible for ignoring multiple
20
Court orders. (See ECF No. 111.) Mr. Schey’s submission is inadequate. The Court still
21
does not know the full story. The Court set the show cause hearing to allow Mr. Schey to
22
explain himself and to allow the Court to inquire about specific instances. Because Mr.
23
Schey failed to appear, these questions remain unanswered. While the Court has the power
24
to order another show cause hearing, doing so will only create further delay and expense.
25
Instead, the Court decides counsel’s conduct warrants this assessment of costs.
26
Under Civil Local Rule 83.4(b), “any attorney permitted to practice in this court
27
must be familiar with and comply with the standards of professional conduct required of
28
members of the State Bar of California, which are now adopted as standards of professional
6
15-cv-1356-WQH-AGS
1
conduct of this court.” The California Rules of Professional Conduct provide that an
2
attorney “shall not intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly fail to perform legal services with
3
competence.” California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-110(A). “Competence” can mean
4
the “diligence […] reasonably necessary for the performance of such service.” California
5
Rule of Professional Conduct 3-110(B).
6
Although the Court declines to address whether Mr. Schey has breached the duty of
7
diligence owed to plaintiff, the Court stresses the importance for an attorney not to take on
8
more work than they can handle. That Mr. Schey was occupied with his role in the Flores
9
matter is no excuse for his lack of diligence in this matter. Mr. Schey agreed to represent
10
plaintiff in this matter and cannot raise his commitment to other matters as a defense for
11
failing to comply with this Court’s orders.
12
The question then, is what is the proper remedy for Mr. Schey’s violations of this
13
Court’s orders. The Federal Rules provide that it is appropriate for the Court to order an
14
attorney to pay as a sanction opposing counsel’s reasonable expenses, including attorney’s
15
fees, incurred because of the attorney’s noncompliance with a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P.
16
16(f)(2). Such an award is mandatory “unless the noncompliance was substantially justified
17
or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Id. As explained previously,
18
the Court finds Mr. Schey’s failure to comply was due to his own lack of diligence, so his
19
noncompliance was not substantially justified. Moreover, as explained in their declaration,
20
AAUW’s counsel wasted considerable time preparing, traveling, and appearing for Court-
21
ordered conferences and hearings Mr. Schey did not attend.
22
Determing whether attorney’s fees are reasonable typically involves calculating the
23
number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly
24
rate. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433-34 (1983). The Supreme Court has
25
repeatedly reemphasized that discretion to determine the amount of a fee award lies with
26
the district court. Id. at 437. In this case, AAUW’s counsel requests compensatory
27
sanctions in the amount of $3,578.50, which is comprised of 13.6 hours of work at an
28
hourly billing rate of $250.00, as well as travel costs and parking fees. (ECF No. 112-1.)
7
15-cv-1356-WQH-AGS
1
AAUW’s counsel reviewed the Court’s orders, prepared for three Court-ordered hearings,
2
and attended Court-ordered hearings on July 26 telephonically and August 8, 2018 in
3
person. (See id.) Given the number of Court-ordered hearings AAUW prepared for and
4
which Mr. Schey failed to attend, the Court finds 13.6 hours to be a reasonable amount of
5
time. 5 A billing rate of $250.00 per hour is reasonable for an experienced attorney in the
6
San Diego market, so the Court also finds AAUW’s counsel’s billing rate to be appropriate.
7
Accordingly, the Court finds the issuance of sanctions, comprised of the fees and
8
expenses incurred by AAUW after the joint motion filed on July 25, 2018, to be warranted
9
against Mr. Schey.
10
CONCLUSION
11
Based on the foregoing, AAUW’s motion for their reasonable attorney’s fees and
12
expenses is granted. The Court awards AAUW the sum of $3,578.50 as sanctions for Mr.
13
Schey’s violation of Court orders. This amount represents the fees and costs incurred by
14
AAUW as a direct result of Mr. Schey’s violations. In light of counsel’s repeated
15
misconduct, the Court considered the imposition of additional monetary sanctions.
16
Although the imposition of additional monetary sanctions would be warranted, the Court
17
elects not to do so at this time and instead chooses to ADMONISH and WARN Mr. Schey
18
that future misconduct on his part may result in the imposition of much more severe
19
sanctions.
20
21
22
23
5
Mr. Schey claims that fees should not be awarded for the costs AAUW incurred to
24
appear at the August 8, 2018 hearing because AAUW’s counsel was not required to attend.
25
Although attendance was not required, AAUW’s counsel had every right to attend the
26
hearing. The Court is of the opinion AAUW’s counsel should have attended in order to
27
properly represent their client. Accordingly, reimbursement for AAUW’s cost of
28
attendance is warranted.
8
15-cv-1356-WQH-AGS
1
This sanction is levied solely against plaintiff’s counsel Peter Schey. Consequently,
2
Mr. Schey shall pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,578.50, to be delivered directly
3
to AAUW by September 14, 2018. Such costs are not to be charged to Mr. Schey’s client
4
or reimbursed out of any settlement or judgment that may occur in the future.
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 31, 2018
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
15-cv-1356-WQH-AGS
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?