Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Global Horizons, Inc. et al

Filing 714

ORDER FOLLOWING HEARING ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re 704 re 713 . Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 08/20/2014. -- this Court FINDS that there is good cause to discipline the EEOC's counsel, Sue Noh, Esq., and Anna Park, Esq., for violating the Local Rules and this Court's oral instructions. This Court will file a disciplinary complaint against Ms. Noh and Ms. Park with the State Bar of California. Further, this Court will not consider the EEOC&# 039;s pending request to approve the four Consent Decrees unless the EEOC holds a press conference in compliance with the terms of this Order. (eps )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to r eceive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
vs.
)
)
GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., DBA
)
GLOBAL HORIZONS MANPOWER,
)
INC.; CAPTAIN COOK COFFEE
COMPANY LTD.; DEL MONTE FRESH )
PRODUCE (HAWAII), INC.; KAUAI )
COFFEE COMPANY, INC.; KELENA )
)
FARMS, INC.,; MAC FARMS OF
)
HAWAII, LLC NKA MF NUT CO.,
LLC; MAUI PINEAPPLE COMPANY, )
)
LTD. AKA MAUI PINEAPPLE
)
FARMS; ALEXANDER & BALDWIN,
)
INC.; MASSIMO ZANETTI
BEVERAGE USA, INC.; AND DOES )
)
1-15, INCLUSIVE,
)
)
Defendants.
____________________________ )
UNITED STATES EQUAL
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION,

CIVIL 11-00257 LEK

ORDER FOLLOWING HEARING ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
On June 4, 2014, this Court issued its Order Denying
the EEOC’s Requests for Approval of Consent Decrees and Order to
Show Cause (“Order to Show Cause”).

[Dkt. no. 704.]

This Court

ordered counsel for Plaintiff the United States Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (“the EEOC”) to file a response showing
good cause why this Court should not impose sanctions upon
counsel for failing to follow the applicable Local Rules and this
Court’s oral instructions regarding the Consent Decrees and
proposed orders regarding Defendants Mac Farms of Hawaii, LLC,

now known as MF Nut Co., LLC (“MF Nut”), Kelena Farms, Inc.
(“Kelena Farms”), Captain Cook Coffee Company, Ltd. (“Captain
Cook Coffee”), and Kauai Coffee Company, Inc. (“Kauai Coffee”).
On June 5, 2014, the EEOC filed its response to the Order to Show
Cause (“Response”).

[Dkt. no. 705.]

This matter came on for hearing on August 19, 2014.
Appearing at the hearing were Sue Noh, Esq., on behalf of the
EEOC, and Barbara Petrus, Esq., on behalf of MF Nut.
BACKGROUND
At some point prior to June 3, 2014, the EEOC reached
settlement agreements with MF Nut, Kelena Farms, Captain Cook
Coffee, and Kauai Coffee.

Counsel for the EEOC and counsel for

each of these defendants signed the respective Consent Decrees.
Anna Park, Esq., signed each of the Consent Decrees on behalf of
the EEOC.

Each of her signatures is dated June 3, 2014.

Each

Consent Decree includes a proposed order for this Court to sign,
approving of the Consent Decree and ordering compliance
therewith.
A staff member called this Court’s office on behalf of
counsel for the EEOC to inquire about the process for filing the
Consent Decrees.

This Court’s staff expressly instructed

counsel’s staff not to file the Consent Decrees and proposed
orders.

This Court instructed counsel’s staff: 1) to submit the

Consent Decrees and proposed orders to
2

[e-mail] for review; and 2) if this
Court approved the Consent Decrees and signed the associated
orders, this Court would file the Consent Decrees and orders.
Counsel’s staff stated that they needed the Consent Decrees to be
filed by a certain date because the EEOC had scheduled a press
conference to discuss the settlements.
Instead of submitting the Consent Decrees and proposed
order to [e-mail], as instructed by this
Court, counsel for the EEOC filed the four Consent Decrees on
June 3, 2014.

[Dkt. nos. 700-03.1]

Each filing is titled

“Consent Decree,” and the docket entry for each filing is
“Settlement Agreement/Consent Decree.”
each Consent Decree is unsigned.

The order attached to

On June 4, 2014, after this

Court issued the Order to Show Cause, the EEOC sent the Consent
Decrees and proposed orders to [e-mail]
for this Court’s review.

This Court has not approved the Consent

Decrees and proposed orders, pending the outcome of the
proceedings related to the Order to Show Cause.
DISCUSSION
Local Rule 100.9.1 addresses the submission of proposed
orders.

It states: “Proposed orders are to be submitted

separately from the underlying application, request, or motion

1

This Court’s Order to Show Cause deemed the Consent
Decrees filed on June 3, 2014 withdrawn.
3

and shall be submitted by e-mail in a format compatible with Word
or Word Perfect, unless directed by the court to be submitted
differently.”

The EEOC’s filing of the Consent Decrees with the

unsigned orders on June 3, 2014 violated both Local Rule 100.9.1
and this Court’s oral instructions to counsel’s staff member.
The EEOC argues that this Court should not impose
sanctions because: 1) counsel had a good faith belief that the
magistrate judge ordered the parties to file their Consent
Decrees by June 3, 2014; see EO, filed 5/22/14 (dkt. no. 699);
2) the EEOC’s counsel followed the same procedure with the
consent decree and proposed order regarding Defendant Del Monte
Fresh Produce (Hawaii), also known as Del Monte Fresh Produce
(Hawaii) (“Del Monte”), and this Court later approved that
consent decree; see dkt. nos. 643, 651; 3) the EEOC followed the
same procedure with consent decrees in prior actions in this
district; and 4) counsel was not aware that this procedure
violated any court rules.

None of these arguments are

persuasive.
First, the magistrate judge’s May 22, 2014 EO granted
“an extension until June 3, 2014, to finalize the terms of the
proposed consent decrees.”

[Dkt. no. 699 (emphasis added).]

EO said nothing about June 3, 2014 being a filing deadline.
Further, to the extent that counsel thought that the EO was
ambiguous, counsel could have sought clarification from the
4

The

magistrate judge.
This Court is not persuaded by counsel’s argument that
they were not aware that the practice of filing a consent decree
prior to court approval of the consent decree violated court
rules.

As licensed attorneys practicing in this district, the

EEOC’s counsel are responsible for familiarizing themselves with
the applicable rules.
As to counsel’s argument regarding the Del Monte
consent decree, that situation is distinguishable.

When the EEOC

filed the Del Monte proposed consent decree on November 18, 2013,
it was titled “[Proposed] Consent Decree.”
(brackets in original).]

[Dkt. no. 643 at 1

The docket entry for that filing is

“Settlement Agreement Del Monte [Proposed] Consent Decree.”
Thus, it was clear from the EEOC’s publicly available filing that
the Del Monte proposed consent decree was not a final, courtapproved document.

The Del Monte consent decree became final

when this Court signed the attached order and filed the
documents.

In contrast, each of the four Consent Decrees

currently at issue was titled “Consent Decree,” and the docket
entry for each was “Settlement Agreement/Consent Decree.”

These

descriptions gave the misleading impression that the filings were
final, court-approved documents.
Finally, regardless of the EEOC’s prior filing of the
Del Monte proposed consent decree and prior submissions in other

5

cases, this Court’s staff expressly instructed counsel’s office
not to file the Consent Decrees and proposed orders currently at
issue.

The EEOC’s counsel disregarded that instruction,

apparently so that EEOC officials could announce, during a
previously scheduled press conference, that consent decrees had
been “filed” in this case.
While this Court recognizes that the EEOC uses press
conferences to inform the public about litigation that the EEOC
is involved in and to educate the public about unlawful
discrimination practices, the EEOC should not have held a press
conference regarding the settlements with MF Nut, Kelena Farms,
Captain Cook Coffee, and Kauai Coffee until this Court signed the
orders attached to the Consent Decrees and filed the documents.
This would likely have occurred in a timely manner, i.e. no more
than seven to ten days, after the EEOC submitted the Consent
Decrees and proposed orders to [e-mail].
The EEOC could have held its press conference at that time.
Further, the EEOC’s actions ignored the possibility that this
Court could reject one or more of the Consent Decrees.

The

EEOC’s disregard of the applicable rules and this Court’s express
instructions is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.
At the hearing on the Order to Show Cause, Ms. Noh
acknowledged that she was responsible for the filing of the
Consent Decrees and proposed orders.

6

Ms. Noh represented that it

was Ms. Park who informed the EEOC’s upper management that the
Consent Decrees had been filed and that management could proceed
with the scheduled press conference.

This Court therefore FINDS

that both Ms. Noh and Ms. Park are responsible for the violation
of the applicable court rules and this Court’s oral instructions.
Local Rule 83.4 states, in pertinent part:
(a) For good cause shown and after an
opportunity to be heard, any member of the bar of
this court may be disbarred, suspended from
practice for a definite time, reprimanded, or
subjected to such other discipline as the court
may deem proper.
(b) The court may at any time appoint three
members of the bar of this court as a Committee on
Discipline. Such Committee may be dissolved by
the court at any time. Said Committee shall have
power to and shall conduct investigations relating
to the discipline of members of the bar of this
court, either on its own motion or pursuant to a
reference by the court. The court may refer the
matter to the disciplinary body of any court
before which the attorney has been admitted to
practice.
This Court FINDS that there is good cause to discipline both
Ms. Noh and Ms. Park.

Ms. Noh and Ms. Park are both licensed to

practice law in the State of California.

This Court will file a

disciplinary complaint against each of them with the State Bar of
California.
Finally, this Court informs the EEOC that it will not
consider its request to approve the four Consent Decrees unless
the EEOC holds a press conference retracting its statements at
the June press conference regarding the improperly filed Consent
7

Decrees.

The EEOC must submit proof of the retraction press

conference by filing either: 1) a declaration by an EEOC official
with personal knowledge describing the date, time, and place of
the conference and a summary of the statements that the EEOC
made; or 2) a press release issued by the EEOC containing the
same information.
August 29, 2014.

The EEOC’s filing is due by no later than
This Court CAUTIONS the EEOC that, if it fails

to comply with the August 29, 2014 deadline, this Court may: deny
the requests to approve the Consent Decrees; and reset all
unresolved claims for trial.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of the foregoing, this Court FINDS that
there is good cause to discipline the EEOC’s counsel, Sue Noh,
Esq., and Anna Park, Esq., for violating the Local Rules and this
Court’s oral instructions.

This Court will file a disciplinary

complaint against Ms. Noh and Ms. Park with the State Bar of
California.

Further, this Court will not consider the EEOC’s

pending request to approve the four Consent Decrees unless the
EEOC holds a press conference in compliance with the terms of
this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, August 20, 2014.

/s/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge

E.E.O.C. VS. GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., ET AL.; CIVIL NO. 11-00257
LEK-RLP; ORDER FOLLOWING HEARING ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

9