McDonald v. OneWest Bank, FSB et al

Filing 297

ORDER denying pltf's 278 Motion for Sanctions by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
_______________________________________
)
JAMES MCDONALD,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
ONEWEST BANK, FSB, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________)

No. C10-1952RSL
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

13
14

This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions Pursuant

15

to CR 37(b)(2)(A) and 28 U.S.C. § 1927.” Dkt. # 278. Having reviewed the motion and the

16

remainder of the record, the motion is hereby DENIED. The parties are bound by the Court’s

17

summary judgment rulings, but if plaintiff failed to request or did not obtain summary judgment

18

on a particular defense or issue, the matter will be decided by the jury. Defendants may pursue

19

whatever defenses and arguments are available to them, including an argument that plaintiff did

20

not suffer damages with respect to certain statutory violations, as long as the argument is not

21

inconsistent with the findings of the Court.

22

Defendants have the burden of establishing that the document currently in their

23

possession is, in fact, the original promissory note signed by plaintiff in 2007. The Court was

24

unable to decide this issue as a matter of law because (a) defendants were unable to produce a

25

witness with personal knowledge of the relevant events and records and (b) their willingness to

26
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

1

substitute supposition for facts greatly damaged the credibility of their assertions. The Court has

2

already sanctioned defendants for their improper litigation conduct: that issue has been resolved.

3

Plaintiff’s request that the Court add to the sanction by assuming that defendants will not be able

4

to prove the authenticity of the document in their possession (or by precluding the admission of

5

evidence regarding that fact) is unwarranted and unjustified.

6

Finally, the Court did not “unequivocally order[] Heidi Buck-Morrison to remain

7

as lead counsel.” Motion at 15. Defendants are free to retain multiple attorneys (as MERS and

8

OneWest have done), and those attorneys may choose to divide the tasks associated with the

9

representation amongst themselves. The Court will not compel defendants to speak solely

10

through Ms. Buck-Morrison simply because that would be most convenient for plaintiff.

11
12
13

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is DENIED as
untimely or unsupported.

14

Dated this 23rd day of August, 2013.
15
16

A

17

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

-2-