Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03611/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03611-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

 1 A magistrate judge has the power to certify to a district

judge facts supporting the entry of a judgment of contempt for

misbehavior, such as disobeying a lawful order, which is serious

or occurs outside the presence of the magistrate judge. 28

U.S.C. § 636(e)(6)(B)(i)-(ii). In that event, the magistrate

judge

“shall forthwith certify the facts to a district judge and

may serve or cause to be served, upon any person whose

behavior is brought into question under this paragraph, an

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUAN DOMINGUEZ, JUANA

DOMINGUEZ,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

EXCEL MANUFACTURING CO. 

INC., ET. AL.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C09-3611 EDL (BZ)

CERTIFICATION OF FACTS

SUPPORTING ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

OF CONTEMPT

The undersigned hereby certifies the following facts to

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte in support of the entry of

a judgment of criminal contempt1 against defendant Excel

Case 3:09-cv-03611-EDL Document 38 Filed 08/13/10 Page 1 of 5
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

order requiring such person to appear before a district

judge upon a day certain to show cause why that person

should not be adjudged in contempt by reason of the facts so

certified. The district judge shall thereupon hear the

evidence as to the act or conduct complained of and, if it

is such as to warrant punishment, punish such person in the

same manner and to the same extent as for a contempt

committed before a district judge. 

28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6).

The magistrate judge’s authority under section 636(e)

encompasses certification for criminal, as well as civil,

contempt. See Taberer v. Armstrong World Indus., 954 F.2d 888

(3d Cir. 1992); Aldrige v. Young, 782 F. Supp. 1457 (D. Nev.

1991). Criminal contempt is appropriate where, as here, the

relief requested is intended to punish past failures rather than

to coerce future compliance. Taberer, 954 F.2d at 897; Aldridge, 782 F. Supp. at 1458. 

A magistrate judge presiding with the consent of the

parties, exercises the contempt authority of a district judge. 

28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(4). 

2

Manufacturing Co. Inc. (“Excel”), its attorney in this action

Laura Flynn, and its insurer Colony Insurance Company

(“Colony”):

1. This is a products liability action for damages arising

out of an industrial accident that took place while plaintiff

Juan Dominguez was working with a baler manufactured by

defendant. As a result of the accident, Mr. Dominguez’s right

leg was badly injured. Additionally, Ms. Dominguez is bringing

a loss of consortium claim. 

2. By Order dated May 14, 2010, the parties were directed

to appear at a settlement conference on August 10, 2010. Doc

#25, Order Scheduling Settlement Conference at 1. My order

mandated the appearance of each party and lead counsel. Id at

2. My order specifically required each “party who is not a

natural person [to] be represented by the person or persons not

directly involved in the events which gave rise to the

Case 3:09-cv-03611-EDL Document 38 Filed 08/13/10 Page 2 of 5
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

3

litigation but with full authority to negotiate a settlement.” 

Id. My order further clarified that “[a] person who needs to

call another person not present before accepting, rejecting or

making any settlement offer does not have full authority.” Id. 

Finally, my order required that “[a]n insured party shall appear

with a representative of the carrier with full authority to

negotiate up to the limits of coverage. The Court shall be

notified immediately if the carrier declines to attend.” Id.

3. Despite my order, no representative of Excel, or of

Colony, defendant Excel’s insurer, was present. I received no

request from Excel to be excused from appearing. Instead, Excel

inserted a footnote in its settlement conference statement which

reads as follows: “[t]he parties have stipulated that Excel and

its insurance carrier representative can appear at the

settlement conference via telephone. Excel is located in

Minnesota. Its carrier is located in Arizona.” Defendant’s

Settlement Conference Statement at 1. 

4. The following people appeared at the settlement

conference: (1) plaintiffs Juan Dominguez and Juana Dominguez,

(2) plaintiffs’ attorney Julio Ramos, (3) plaintiffs’ worker’s

compensation counsel Ricardo De Alba, (4) attorney Bruce Turner

for claimant State Compensation Insurance Fund, and (5)

defendant’s attorney Laura Flynn. It became clear during my

discussions with Ms. Flynn that she lacked full authority to

settle the case. She was in telephone contact with

representatives from Excel and Colony. At one point, I had my

secretary place a conference call with Ms. Flynn, her client and

its insurer. In my judgment, their absence at the conference

Case 3:09-cv-03611-EDL Document 38 Filed 08/13/10 Page 3 of 5
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

4

was an impediment to achieving settlement. 

5. Mr. Ramos objected to the non-attendance of Excel and

its insurer. Ms. Flynn replied that the parties had stipulated

to their non-attendance at the case management conference and

that the Court approved the stipulation and ordered the

conference. Ms. Flynn stated that this stipulation was made

orally during a May 11, 2010 conference before Judge Laporte. 

My intern listened to the recording of the May 11, 2010

conference and informs me that this claimed stipulation is not

in the record. Nor is it reflected in the Court’s minutes of

that hearing. 

6. Mr. Ramos denied there was such a stipulation and has

since filed a declaration to that effect. Doc #34. 

7. The parties could not reach a settlement agreement. In

part this was because defendant’s representatives were not

present and could not meaningfully participate in the

negotiations or meet the plaintiffs. In part, this was because

the plaintiffs were concerned that defendants had engaged in a

scheme to avoid a meaningful settlement conference, which they

attended with two lawyers. 

I therefore request that Judge Laporte ORDER defendant

Excel and its insurer Colony to show cause at a time and place

she selects, why they should not be adjudged in contempt of

court or otherwise sanctioned for their failures to comply with

the Court’s Order and to appear at the August 10, 2010

settlement conference. Additionally, I request that Judge

Laporte ORDER defendant’s attorney Laura Flynn to show cause at

a time and place Judge Laporte selects, why Ms. Flynn should not

Case 3:09-cv-03611-EDL Document 38 Filed 08/13/10 Page 4 of 5
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

5

be adjudged in contempt of court or otherwise sanctioned for

claiming that she and Mr. Ramos stipulated that neither Excel

nor Colony had to attend the August 10, 2010 settlement

conference and that Judge Laporte approved the stipulation, when

there is no record of such a stipulation. 

Dated: August 11, 2010

 Bernard Zimmerman

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-03611-EDL Document 38 Filed 08/13/10 Page 5 of 5