Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05756/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05756-50/pdf.json

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

---

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

SAMUEL BERNARD JOHNSON III,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CHEVRON CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-05756 SI

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO ADMONISH AND FOR

SANCTIONS AND COSTS

Plaintiff’s motion to admonish defense counsel and request for sanctions and costs is currently

set for oral argument on April 23, 2010. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter

appropriate for resolution without oral argument and hereby VACATES the hearing. Having considered

the papers submitted, the Court hereby rules as follows.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Samuel Bernard Johnson III instituted this action in November 2007 after his

termination from his job as a Procurement Specialist for defendant Chevron Environmental Management

Company. Plaintiff claimed discrimination and retaliation on numerous bases, including race, sexual

orientation, and HIV/AIDS status. In December 2008, plaintiff sought leave to amend his complaint

in order to, among other things, add a claim based on a work-related injury he suffered sometime in

2006. Defendants opposed the motion to amend on the ground that adding claims based on plaintiff’s

work-related injury would necessitate a substantial amount of additional discovery into the basis for the

claim. The Court declined to allow plaintiff to state new claims based on his work-related injury on

grounds of prejudice and delay. See Feb. 4, 2009 Order (Docket No. 241). Subsequently, in May 2009,

Case 3:07-cv-05756-SI Document 419 Filed 04/15/10 Page 1 of 3
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

1

 Plaintiff has appealed the summary judgment order and this Court’s order taxing costs against

him; the appeal is now fully briefed and it awaiting the Ninth Circuit’s consideration. 

2

the Court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. May 19, 2009 Order (Docket No. 350).1

In its summary judgment order, the Court again emphasized that plaintiff could not proceed on his work

injury claims because the claims were not contained in the operative version of plaintiff’s complaint.

Plaintiff now seeks an order admonishing and imposing sanctions and costs against defense

attorneys Robert Eassa, Paul Johnson, Delia Isvoranu, and Abiel Kwong Yu Wong. Plaintiff’s

contention is essentially that defense counsel violated the Northern District’s Local Rules and the

California Rules of Professional Conduct by representing to the Court that permitting plaintiff to allege

new claims based on his work-related injury would require a substantial amount of additional discovery.

According to plaintiff, counsel’s representation was “false and misleading” because the parties engaged

in discovery on the injury-related claims in an administrative proceeding that preceded this action, and

during fact and expert discovery in this action. See Johnson Decl. ISO Mot. to Admonish ¶¶ 7-8, 11,

39 (Docket No. 413). Plaintiff complains that defense counsel’s improper conduct caused him to expend

excessive costs in litigating this action and forced him to file an appeal with the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiff presented the same arguments he now advances in a motion for leave to file a motion

for reconsideration of the Court’s order declining to allow plaintiff to amend his complaint to plead the

new injury-related claims. The Court denied plaintiff leave to seek reconsideration, reiterating the

Court’s conclusion that permitting plaintiff to include the new claims would result in significant expense

and delay. Feb. 9, 2009 Order (Docket No. 261). Plaintiff then filed a motion for leave to seek

reconsideration of that order. In denying the motion, the Court expressly advised plaintiff, “The Court

has carefully reviewed the materials submitted by plaintiff in support of the instant motion and

concludes that they do not support plaintiff’s characterization of the course of discovery thus far. . . .

The Court continues to believe that expanding this case to include plaintiff’s new allegations would

require non-expert discovery to be reopened, thereby further delaying litigation and prejudicing

defendants.” Feb. 21, 2009 Order at *1-2 (Docket No. 268). 

Plaintiff’s papers in support of the present motion have not persuaded the Court that its prior

Case 3:07-cv-05756-SI Document 419 Filed 04/15/10 Page 2 of 3
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

3

rulings were erroneous, or that defense counsel engaged in misconduct by opposing amendment of

plaintiff’s complaint on the ground the amendments he sought would prejudice the defense. The fact

that counsel may have received some prior discovery and asked plaintiff some questions related to his

injury during his deposition does not invalidate defendants’ position that permitting plaintiff to state a

new claim based on that injury would prejudice defendants by requiring additional discovery at a late

juncture in the case. Plaintiff is essentially requesting that the Court to admonish defense counsel for

vigorously defending this action, and the Court is not inclined to grant this request. 

With respect to plaintiff’s contention that defendants’ conduct has caused him to expend

excessive funds prosecuting this action, the Court simply notes that it approved the taxation of costs

against plaintiff because much of the expense incurred was due to plaintiff’s own litigation strategy,

including filing multiple versions of various pleadings and motions and making repeated attempts to

request reconsideration of the Court’s rulings. 

Finally, the Court observes that many of plaintiff’s specific citations to alleged

misrepresentations in defendants’ papers are taken from the briefing in plaintiff’s appeal. This Court

lacks the power to admonish, sanction, or impose costs against defense counsel for its conduct in a Ninth

Circuit proceeding. Plaintiff’s motion is therefore DENIED.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby DENIES plaintiff’s

motion to admonish and to impose sanctions and costs. (Docket No. 412).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2010 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05756-SI Document 419 Filed 04/15/10 Page 3 of 3