Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04941/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04941-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BERNADINE LEWIS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION, et

al., 

Defendants. /

No. C 06-04941 CRB

ORDER RE: SANCTIONS

At oral argument on March 2, 2007, the Court granted the motion to quash of

defendant APM Terminals North America, Inc. The Court ruled that the state court

summons plaintiff served on defendant in this federal action was improper. Ninth Circuit

law is clear that a district court is without jurisdiction over a party who has been served with

a state court summons after the action was removed to federal court. Beecher v. Wallace,

381 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir. 1967). The Court noted that defendant had advised plaintiff’s

counsel of this defect in service prior to filing its motion to quash, and indeed had offered to

accept service of a federal summons, but counsel nonetheless ignored the offer forcing

defendant to file the motion to quash. Even after receipt of the motion plaintiff’s counsel did

not move to correct the improper summons; instead she filed an untimely opposition to the

motion.

Case 3:06-cv-04941-CRB Document 36 Filed 04/23/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2006\4941\orderresanction.wpd 2

At oral argument the Court indicated that it would sanction plaintiff’s counsel to 

compensate defendant for her vexatious conduct, see 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and directed

defendant to file an affidavit specifying its fees incurred in moving to quash the summons. 

The Court gave plaintiff’s counsel until March 16 to file a response. Counsel’s opposition

was again untimely; she did not file it until March 30, 2007.

After considering all the papers filed in this matter, including plaintiff’s untimely

submissions, the Court orders plaintiff’s counsel to pay defendant APM Terminals North

America, Inc. $1500.00 in sanctions. The Court finds this is an appropriate amount in light

of defendant’s inability to segregate fees it incurred as a result of the improper summons

from fees incurred addressing other issues. Moreover, defendant was not required to file a

reply memorandum.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 23, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-04941-CRB Document 36 Filed 04/23/07 Page 2 of 2