Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03340/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03340-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

CANDACE LEE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF REDWOOD, et al.,

Defendants. 

No. C 06-3340 SBA

ORDER

[Docket No. 67]

Before the Court is pro se plaintiff Candace Lee’s motion for sanctions against the defendants

[Docket No. 67]. After reading and considering the arguments presented by the parties, the Court finds

this matter appropriate for resolution without a hearing. See FED. R. CIV. P. 78. For the reasons that

follow, the motion for sanctions is DENIED. 

Plaintiff Lee filed an amended complaint on August 24, 2006, asserting three causes of action

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and various claims under state law, related to her arrest on May 2, 2005, by

police officers of the City of Redwood. The defendants in the amended complaint are the City of

Redwood City, police chief Carlos Bolanos, and Redwood City police officers Scott Warner, James

Stoney, Kathryn Anderson, Dan Smith, Edward Feeney, and Jamie Mateo. 

Lee appears to be requesting sanctions against the defendants for two reasons. First, Lee

contends that the defendants should be sanctioned because they failed to meet and confer with her for

the purpose of filing a joint statement of undisputed facts in support of their motion for summary

judgment. As explained in the Court’s order issued May 8, 2007, however, the filing of a joint statement

of undisputed facts was not required in this case. Under Local Rule 56-2, a Judge may order the

submission of a joint statement of undisputed facts for summary judgment motions, but it is not

required. In fact, this Court’s standing orders provide that “parties are not required to file a statements

of undisputed fact in connection with a motion for summary judgment.” Standing Order No. 6. Thus,

failure to participate in drafting a joint statement of undisputed facts is not a grounds for sanctioning the

defendants. 

Case 4:06-cv-03340-SBA Document 78 Filed 05/17/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

Lee’s second basis for requesting sanctions is somewhat less clear. Lee is apparently contending

the defendants failed to comply with settlement conference orders issued by Magistrate Judge Edward

M. Chen and that the defendants were unreasonable for refusing to increase the amount of their

settlement offer. In early January 2007, this case was referred to Magistrate Judge Chen for the purpose

of conducting a settlement conference. On January 4, 2007, a notice of settlement conference and

settlement conference order was issued. See Docket No. 52. The settlement conference was held

January 26, 2007. 

The defendants made a settlement offer, basically consisting of forgiving outstanding debt that

Lee owes from a prior lawsuit. The plaintiff found this settlement offer inadequate and therefore refused

it. Lee declares:

Plaintiff also request the defense not to appear the settlement conference if defense

counsel was still offering $25,000. Defense counsel failed to respond in comptempt [sic]

[of] the Magistrate Judge court order and went for settlement conference and make an

unreasonable offer of $25,000 to make his trip for his own benefit that the defense

counsel knew plaintiff won’t accept the offer and wasted the City’s attorney’s fee plus

it’s representative’s trip.

Docket No. 66.

Because the defendants refused to make an additional settlement offer, “[p]laintiff had no other

alternative but requested the Magistrate Judge Chen to end the meeting due to the fact, parties should

have additional mandatory settlement conference before the trial.” Docket No. 75. The defendants’

refusal to settle for an amount requested by the plaintiff is not ground for sanctions. 

 Accordingly, plaintiff Candace Lee’s motion for sanctions [Docket No. 67] is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

May 17, 2007 _________________________________

Saundra Brown Armstrong 

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-03340-SBA Document 78 Filed 05/17/07 Page 2 of 2