Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00963/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00963-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 195
Nature of Suit: Contract Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MT. SHASTA TITLE AND ESCROW ) 2:07-cv-963-GEB-EFB

COMPANY, a California corporation, ) 

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER TO PAY SANCTIONS

)

PENNBROOK HOMES, an Oregon )

corporation; CITY OF MOUNT SHASTA, )

a California municipal corporation;)

and DOES 1 through 20, )

)

Defendants. )

___________________________________)

)

PENNBROOK HOMES, an Oregon )

corporation; )

)

Cross-Complainant, )

)

v. )

)

CITY OF MOUNT SHASTA, a California )

municipal corporation, )

)

Cross-Defendant. )

)

On November 26, 2007, a sanctions hearing was held, during

which Christopher J. Manfredi, counsel for Defendant and CrossComplainant Pennbrook Homes, was given an opportunity to explain why

Case 2:07-cv-00963-GEB-EFB Document 53 Filed 11/28/07 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

At the time Pennbrook Homes mail served the City of Mount 1

Shasta with the cross-complaint, the City of Mount Shasta had not yet

appeared in the action. Parties who have not yet appeared must be

personally served with a summons on a cross-complaint. William W.

Schwarzer, et al., California Practice Guide: Federal Civil Procedure

Before Trial, § 8:352.1 (The Rutter Group) (“Any new third party named

in a cross-claim (or any party who has not yet appeared in the action)

must be personally served with a summons on the cross-claim.”).

2

sanctions should not be imposed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

(“Rule”) 16(f), for his failure to file an accurate status report. 

On August 31, 2007, on behalf of Pennbrook Homes, Mr.

Manfredi filed a status report which stated that “[t]he City of Mt.

Shasta has not appeared in this action, and has not responded to Mt.

Shasta Title’s complaint or Pennbrook’s cross-claims. Pennbrook has

obtained a default judgment in its favor, and against the City of Mt.

Shasta. . . .” However, the Clerk’s default and default judgment

against the City of Mount Shasta on Pennbrook Homes’ cross-complaint

should not have entered because Pennbrook Homes did not properly serve

the City of Mount Shasta with its cross-complaint. On September 13, 1

2007, in a document it filed entitled “Notice of Intent to File

Stipulation to Vacate Default Judgment Entered Against Cross-Defendant

City of Mount Shasta,” Pennbrook Homes acknowledged that its service

of the cross-complaint on the City of Mount Shasta, and the subsequent

entry of default judgment against the City of Mount Shasta, were

improper.

Sanctions may be imposed under Rule 16(f) if, inter alia, “a

party or party’s attorney is substantially unprepared to participate

in [a scheduling] conference . . . unless the judge finds that the

noncompliance was substantially justified or that other circumstances

make an award of expenses unjust.” Since the Court need not hold a

scheduling conference in every action, it follows that the

Case 2:07-cv-00963-GEB-EFB Document 53 Filed 11/28/07 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

In fact, the undersigned judge often does not hold scheduling 2

conferences in cases in which a practicable scheduling order can be

created without holding such a conference, in light of the statement in

Rule 1 that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “shall be construed and

administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination

of every action.” 

3

preparedness obligation applies not only to the scheduling conference,

but also to the status report the parties are obligated to file in

advance of that conference. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b); 1993 Advisory 2

Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) (“[W]hile a scheduling order

is mandated, a scheduling conference is not.”). Here, Mr. Manfredi’s

status report reveals that he was substantially unprepared to give an

accurate status of his action when he prepared the report since that

report contained inaccurate information about the City of Mount

Shasta’s status in the action. Further, Mr. Manfredi’s lack of

preparation was not substantially justified, and no other

circumstances make the imposition of a monetary sanction unjust.

Mr. Manfredi contends 

that sanctions pursuant to FRCP 16(f) are not

warranted [since] counsel for Pennbrook has

acknowledged that he made a mistake with respect

to the validity of the service of its crosscomplaint on the City, and that as a result,

representations contained [in] Pennbrook’s

application for entry of default and [status

report] turned out to be inaccurate. However,

counsel for Pennbrook had no intent to mislead the

Court, its staff, or any of the parties to this

action. In addition, upon learning of his

mistake, counsel for Pennbrook promptly attempted

to remedy the consequences of his error, and their

impact on the Court and the parties. Counsel for

Pennbrook has also apologized to the Court, its

staff, and the other parties to this case.

However, Mr. Manfredi fails to explain why he did not do what any

reasonably competent attorney should have done before he filed his

status report: become reasonably assured that his representations in

Case 2:07-cv-00963-GEB-EFB Document 53 Filed 11/28/07 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

his status report were accurate. “Such behavior is not only a mark of

elementary professional competence, but is common sense to attorneys

seeking to zealously represent the interests of their clients.” Dela

Rosa v. Scottsdale Mem’l Health Sys., Inc., 136 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th

Cir. 1998). 

Moreover, to impose sanctions under Rule 16(f), “[i]t need

not be shown that the party to be sanctioned was acting recklessly or

in bad faith. Negligent failure to comply with Rule 16 justifies

imposition of appropriate sanctions.” California Practice Guide:

Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial, § 15:81; see also Ayers v. City

of Richmond, 895 F.2d 1267, 1269-70 (9th Cir. 1990) (upholding

sanction where counsel failed to appear for a settlement conference

because the date “slipped by him”); Ikerd v. Lacy, 852 F.2d 1256,

1258-59 (10th Cir. 1988) (“Neither contumacious attitude nor chronic

failure is a necessary threshold to the imposition of sanctions under

Rule 16 . . . .”). The primary purpose of sanctions in the Rule 16

context “is to insure reasonable management requirements for case

preparation.” Matter of Sanction of Baker, 744 F.2d 1438, 1441 (10th

Cir. 1984); see also 1983 Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P.

16(f) (“[The] explicit reference to sanctions reenforces the rule’s

intention to encourage forceful judicial management.”). 

Thus, violations of Rule 16 are not merely technical or

trivial, but involve a “matter most critical to the court itself: 

management of its docket,” and the avoidance of unnecessary delays and

problems in the administration of its cases. Baker, 744 F.2d at 1441.

Since Mr. Manfredi has failed to provide sufficient

justification for his substantial unpreparedness to participate in the

scheduling of this action (which is evidenced by his failure to file a

Case 2:07-cv-00963-GEB-EFB Document 53 Filed 11/28/07 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

This sanction shall not be taxed to the client. 3

5

status report that accurately reflected the current status of the

action), and since Mr. Manfredi has indicated that he was responsible

for the unpreparedness, Mr. Manfredi is sanctioned in the amount of

TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS ($200.00). Mr. Manfredi shall pay the sanction to 3

the Clerk of the Court for this District within fifteen (15) days from

the date this Order is filed. The check shall be made payable to the 

“United States Treasury.” Proof of payment must be sent to the

undersigned judge’s chambers within five (5) days of payment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 27, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:07-cv-00963-GEB-EFB Document 53 Filed 11/28/07 Page 5 of 5