Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00940/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00940-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection 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

- 1 - 05cv0940

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW T. THOMASSON, REBECCA J.

THOMASSON, MACDONALD P.

TAYLOR JR., and CHENOA R. TAYLOR,

on behalf of themselves and all others

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 05cv0940-LAB (CAB)

ORDER IMPOSING RULE 11

SANCTIONS

[Dkt No. 202]

vs.

GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,

and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive,

Defendants.

On September 4, 2007, the court convened a scheduled hearing to afford pro hac vice counsel

for plaintiffs in this action, Robert L. Arleo, Esq., the opportunity to show cause why FED.R.CIV.P.

("Rule") 11 monetary sanctions should not be imposed against him for making contemptuous and

wholly unfounded accusations against the undersigned District Judge in his July 30, 2007 Declaration

in support of a Motion For Reconsideration of the Order granting defendant's summary judgment

motion. Mr. Arleo appeared telephonically at the hearing. Co-counsel for plaintiffs, Robert Shroth,

Jr., Steven Shewry, Esq., and Michelle Van Dyke, Esq., and counsel for defendant, John H. L'Estrange,

Jr., personally appeared.

In the Order To Show Cause ("OSC") summoning Mr. Arleo to appear, the court set forth the

specific language presented as "facts" from the Arleo Declaration constituting, in the opinion of this

court, contemptuous conduct:

Importantly, I have appeared before some federal judges who simply

view FDCPA Plaintiffs as deadbeats who should be paying their bills

Case 3:05-cv-00940-JAH-KSC Document 213 Filed 09/05/07 Page 1 of 3
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 - 05cv0940

instead of burdening the federal courts with claims of violations of the

FDCPA by debt collectors attempting to collect their debts. Based

upon the contents of the Friday the 13th Order by this Court, I can

confidently state that the Court herein quite unfortunately views my

clients in that exact same manner.

Dkt No. 198, 2:15-19.

Obviously, the Court herein has referred in bold to these 3 telephone

calls for the clear purpose of trivializing the herein action for its own

convenience.

Dkt No. 198, 3:23-24.

To assert that the Plaintiffs herein allegedly invoked this strategy in

order to impermissibly convert its opposition to its own motion for

summary judgment is patently ridiculous and simply further clear and

unmistakable evidence of the Court's consistent pattern of bias levied

against the Plaintiffs.

Dkt No. 198, 6:16-19.

The refusal by this Court to consider the factual merits of the contents

of these putative class members [sic] demonstrates a recklessness far

beyond any alleged recklessness, which the Court accuses me of in

certain portions of its Friday the 13th Order.

Dkt No. 198, 9:17-19.

As set forth above, it is my contention that the Court herein is

absolutely and undeniably biased against the Plaintiffs and views each

as debtors who should simply shut up and pay up. Unfortunately, this

is not the first time that I have experienced clear bias against FDCPA

plaintiffs and a disdain for the FDPCA [sic] exhibited by a federal

district court.

Dkt No. 198, 13:23-26.

Rule 11(b) provides, in pertinent part:

Representations to Court. By presenting to the court (whether by

signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written

motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying

that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief,

formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, --

. . .

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass

or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of

litigation; . . .

(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary

support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary

support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or

discovery; . . .

Case 3:05-cv-00940-JAH-KSC Document 213 Filed 09/05/07 Page 2 of 3
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 - 05cv0940

"If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision

(b) has been violated, the court may . . . impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms,

or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation." Rule 11(c). Courtinitiated monetary sanctions are payable as a fine to the court. At the hearing, the court reviewed in

detail the pertinent portions of the record and the reasons for considering Mr. Arleo's statements to

constitute contempt of court. The court heard Mr. Arleo's responses and attempted justifications for

his unfounded and personally offensive representations attacking the integrity of the undersigned

District Judge. While the court has accepted Mr. Arleo's apology, for the reasons recited on the record,

the court determined Mr. Arleo blatantly violated Rule 11(b) and should be sanctioned. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Mr. Arleo is sanctioned $5,000.00 pursuant to Rule 11(c) for advancing against this

court in a filing in this case the contemptuous accusations identified in the OSC and above.

2. Mr. Arleo shall pay the $5,000.00 sanction to the Clerk of the United States District

Court for the Southern District of California within seven (7) days. Failure to timely pay the sanction

will result in a new OSC and further sanction proceedings.

3. From this date forward, and for an indefinite period, Mr. Arleo shall expressly inform

any United States federal court in connection with any application he may make for pro hac vice status

that he was sanctioned by the United States District Court for the Southern District of California

pursuant to Rule 11(c) in the amount of $5,000.00 for making contemptuous statements in a pleading

filed with this court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 5, 2007

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

cc: USDC Finance

Case 3:05-cv-00940-JAH-KSC Document 213 Filed 09/05/07 Page 3 of 3