Mendoza v. County of San Diego et al
Filing
17
ORDER: (1) vacating Show Cause Hearing; (2) Issuing Monetary Sanctions; (3) Resetting ENE Conference. The Court orders that Plaintiff's counsel remit payment in the amount of $742.18 to Defendants. The Court vacates the Show Cause Hearing currently set for May 10, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. The Court resets the Early Neutral Evaluation Conference for June 7, 2018 at 2:30 p.m. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes on 5/8/2018.(jao)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
PHILLIP JESSE MENDOZA,
Case No.: 17cv1349-W (NLS)
Plaintiff,
12
13
v.
14
ORDER:
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; SHERIFF'S
DEPUTY JAMES GIVENS; and DOES
1-50, inclusive,
15
16
(1) VACATING SHOW CAUSE
HEARING;
(2) REGARDING ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE AND ISSUING MONETARY
SANCTIONS;
Defendants.
17
18
(3) RESETTING EARLY NEUTRAL
EVALUATION CONFERENCE
19
20
I.
BACKGROUND
21
On May 2, 2018, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) due to
22
Plaintiff Phillip Jesse Mendoza’s failure to personally appear at the Early Neutral
23
Evaluation Conference (“ENE”) scheduled for that same day. ECF No. 12. Pursuant to
24
25
26
27
that order, both Plaintiff and his counsel filed declarations outlining their reasons for
Plaintiff’s absence at the ENE. ECF Nos. 14, 15. In addition, Defendants filed a
declaration outlining the costs they incurred in preparing for and attending the ENE.
ECF No. 16.
28
1
17cv1349-W (NLS)
1
Plaintiff’s counsel explains in his declaration that he was not aware that he had to
2
personally produce his client for the ENE, even when he had full settlement authority.
3
ECF No. 14 at ¶ 2. Counsel attributes this error to his unfamiliarity with federal practice,
4
but concedes that he did not read the court’s order setting the ENE, which set forth the
5
personal appearance requirements for the conference. Id. Plaintiff explains in his
6
declaration that he failed to personally appear because his attorney failed to tell him that
7
he needed to appear. ECF No. 15 at ¶ 3. Plaintiff explains that he does have a full time
8
construction job that does not afford him any time off. Id. at ¶ 4.
9
Defendants submitted a declaration outlining the costs they incurred in preparing
10
for and attending the ENE. ECF No. 16. Defendants’ counsel states that his hourly rate
11
is $236.00 and he spent 8.0 hours total in connection with the ENE. Id. at ¶ 4. This
12
includes time spent: (1) meeting with Deputy Givens (1.0); (2) preparing memo for and
13
attending Case Evaluation Committee meeting (to determine settlement authority for
14
ENE) (4.0); (3) preparing ENE brief (1.1); (4) reviewing file to prepare for ENE (0.4); (5)
15
conference with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding ENE (0.2); and attending the ENE (1.3).
16
Id. Counsel also states that his paralegal billed 3.8 hours to assist him in preparing for
17
the ENE. Id. at ¶ 5. In addition, the County paid Deputy Givens $199.38 to attend the
18
ENE as he was off duty and paid overtime to attend. Id., Ex. A at ¶ 3.
19
II.
20
Courts are “endowed with inherent powers which are necessary to the conduct of
DISCUSSION
21
their business, including the power to sanction.” Yagman v. Republic Ins., 987 F.2d 622,
22
628 (9th Cir. 1993). A court has the inherent authority to issue sanctions against parties
23
and non-parties to an action based on their conduct. In re Rainbow Magazine, Inc., 77
24
F.3d 278, 282 (9th Cir. 1996). Additionally, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f),
25
the Court may issue “any just orders,” including Rule 37 sanctions, “if a party or its
26
attorney . . . fails to appear at a scheduling or other pretrial conference.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
27
16(f)(1)(A). Furthermore, “the court must order the party, its attorney, or both to pay the
28
reasonable expenses—including attorney’s fees—incurred because of any noncompliance
2
17cv1349-W (NLS)
1
. . . unless the noncompliance was substantially justified or other circumstances make an
2
award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(2); see also Sedgwick v. Unknown K-9
3
Handler, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77063, *11-12 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2013) (citing Ninth
4
Circuit cases demonstrating the circuit court has repeatedly upheld monetary sanctions
5
imposed for failure to comply with orders regarding settlement conferences).
6
Having read the parties’ declarations, the Court finds sanctions should be issued
7
against Plaintiff’s counsel for failing to produce his client for the ENE. While the Court
8
acknowledges that Plaintiff’s counsel is sufficiently apologetic for his error and for the
9
burden he placed on the Court and Defendants, he admits that the error arose from his
10
11
failure to read the Court’s order. This does not amount to substantial justification.
As to the amount of the sanction, the Court finds it appropriate to award
12
Defendants their costs incurred to personally appear at the ENE. This amount includes
13
Defendants’ counsel’s 1.3 hours at a rate of $236.00 per hour, for a total of $306.80, and
14
the $199.38 paid to Deputy Givens. As for the time that Defendants’ counsel and his
15
paralegal spent preparing for the ENE, the Court declines to award fees associated with
16
these tasks as it was not a wasted effort and they will not need to be performed again for
17
the rescheduled ENE. However, the Court will award Defendants an additional hour of
18
counsel’s time in order to prepare for the rescheduled ENE. Thus, in total, the Court
19
levies sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel in the amount of $742.18.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
17cv1349-W (NLS)
1
III.
2
Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that:
3
1. The Court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s counsel remit payment in the amount of
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
CONCLUSION
$742.18 to Defendants.
2. The Court VACATES the Show Cause Hearing currently set for May 10, 2018
at 9:30 a.m.
3. The Court RESETS the Early Neutral Evaluation Conference for June 7, 2018
at 2:30 p.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 8, 2018
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
17cv1349-W (NLS)
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?