Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02288/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02288-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Civil Remedies: Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

– 1 – 15cv2288

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEWART TITLE GUARANTY 

COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-cv-2288-BAS(WVG)

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART 

AND DECLINING TO ADOPT IN 

PART MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION ON 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

SANCTIONS 

[ECF Nos. 45, 54]

v.

2485 CALLE DEL ORO, LLC,

et al.,

Defendants.

Presently before the Court is Magistrate Judge William Gallo’s Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”) (ECF No. 54) regarding Plaintiff Stewart Title Guaranty 

Company’s Motion to Impose Sanctions Pursuant to FRCP 37(b) (“Motion for 

Sanctions”) (ECF No. 45). 

On May 2, 2017, Plaintiff filed its Motion for Sanctions against Defendants 

Courtland Gettel and Conix VRC, LLC (“Defendants”) and their counsel, Joseph 

Sammartino, for failure to comply with a court order compelling discovery. (ECF 

No. 45.) Plaintiff sought sanctions including the striking of Defendants’ answers to 

the Complaint, entry of default judgments against these Defendants, and the 

Case 3:15-cv-02288-BAS-WVG Document 59 Filed 11/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 10
– 2 – 15cv2288

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

imposition of monetary sanctions on Defendants and Mr. Sammartino in connection 

with Plaintiff’s expenses incurred in connection with the motion for sanctions and a 

prior motion to compel. (Id.) Defendants Court Gettel and Conix VRC, LLC and 

Mr. Sammartino did not file an opposition to the motion for sanctions. Judge Gallo 

held a hearing on the motion for sanctions on July 14, 2017, which only Plaintiff’s 

counsel attended. On August 7, 2017, Judge Gallo issued the R&R on Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Sanctions. (ECF No. 54.) The time for filing objections to the R&R 

expired on August 22, 2017. (Id. at 35:1–3.) On August 29, 2017, Plaintiff filed a 

notice of non-receipt of objection to the R&R. (ECF No. 55.) Defendants Court 

Gettel and Conix VRC, LLC and Mr. Sammartino made no objection to the R&R. 

This Court subsequently held a hearing on an order to show cause why the R&R 

should not be adopted in its entirety. (ECF Nos. 56, 58.)

For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts in part and declines to adopt 

in part the R&R.

I. BACKGROUND

The Court hereby incorporates the fact section of the R&R (ECF No. 54) in its 

entirety, which Judge Gallo certified pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(e)(6). 

In particular, the Court notes the following facts: 

(1) Although Mr. Sammartino repeatedly promised the Court and the 

Plaintiff that discovery was forthcoming, that discovery has still not 

been produced two years into this case; 

(2) After months of promises to provide requested discovery, Plaintiff’s 

counsel’s voicemails and email inquiries to Mr. Sammartino beginning 

in 2017, remained unanswered. Specifically, Plaintiff’s counsel reached 

out to Mr. Sammartino twice in January 2017 and multiple times in 

February 2017 without any response;

(3) At a status conference set before Magistrate Judge Skomal on February 

24, 2017, Mr. Sammartino explained that he had been out of the country 

Case 3:15-cv-02288-BAS-WVG Document 59 Filed 11/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 10
– 3 – 15cv2288

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

and did not have access to his email;

(4) Mr. Sammartino again failed to respond to Plaintiff’s counsel’s inquiries 

by telephone and email on multiple occasions in March 2017, and no 

discovery was forthcoming; 

(5) Judge Skomal set a conference for March 24, 2017 to learn why the 

discovery had still not been produced. Instead of informing the Court 

he was unavailable or requesting rescheduling of the conference, Mr. 

Sammartino instead failed to appear, emailing Plaintiff’s counsel that he 

should inform the Court of Mr. Sammartino’s unavailability. The status 

conference went on without Mr. Sammartino.

(6) After the transfer of the case, Judge Gallo ordered further briefing on 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions and ordered Defendants and Mr. 

Sammartino to appear for a hearing on July 14, 2017. Both orders were 

ignored – no briefing was filed and neither Defendants, nor Mr. 

Sammartino appeared as ordered; and

(7) Defendants and Mr. Sammartino ignored the formal discovery deadlines 

and failed to respond to Requests for Production of Documents and 

Interrogatories served on January 25, 2017. These Requests and 

Interrogatories remain unanswered ten months later. 

Since the R&R was filed, Defendants and Mr. Sammartino continued to ignore 

the Court. The R&R recommended that several sanctions be issued, including: 

striking Defendants’ Answers to the Complaint and entering judgment in favor of the 

Plaintiff, imposing monetary sanctions against both Defendants and Mr. Sammartino 

jointly and severally, reporting Mr. Sammartino to the State Bar of California, and 

imposing criminal contempt sanctions against Mr. Sammartino. Despite the fact that 

the R&R recommended these sanctions, Mr. Sammartino failed to file any objections 

explaining his conduct or asking that the R&R not be adopted in its entirety. 

After the time for filing objections to the R&R expired, this Court ordered the 

Case 3:15-cv-02288-BAS-WVG Document 59 Filed 11/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 10
– 4 – 15cv2288

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

parties to show cause why the R&R should not be adopted in its entirety. (ECF No. 

56.) The Court reached out to both Plaintiff’s counsel and Mr. Sammartino to set a 

hearing date on the order. (Id.) Although Plaintiff’s counsel responded to the Court, 

Mr. Sammartino did not. The Court left two voicemails with Mr. Sammartino’s 

phone number of record to no avail. (Id.) 

On October 30, 2017, the Court held the hearing on its order to show cause at 

which Plaintiff’s counsel appeared telephonically and Mr. Sammartino appeared in 

person. (ECF No. 58.) At the hearing, Mr. Sammartino agreed that terminating 

sanctions and attorney fees against his clients are appropriate. Mr. Sammartino 

initially represented to the Court that “I was never ordered to the best of my 

knowledge to appear at anything that I didn’t appear at.” After the Court referenced 

the R&R’s recommendation that Mr. Sammartino be jointly and severally liable with 

his client for failure to show up at several hearings, Mr. Sammartino conceded that 

“I’m aware of one hearing that I missed. I’m not aware of multiple ones.” With 

respect to his failure to provide discovery responses to Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. 

Sammartino stated that his clients “stonewalled” him and he was told there was 

information when none existed. Mr. Sammartino disputed that he had been

uncommunicative with Plaintiff’s counsel other than “missing one hearing possibly.” 

Instead, Mr. Sammartino represented that he had received no emails, letters, or phone 

calls from Plaintiff’s counsel that have gone unanswered. Although the R&R 

informed the parties that a failure to file timely objections might waive the right to 

raise those objections on appeal, Mr. Sammartino represented that “I didn’t realize 

that a written response was required.” After the Court referenced the R&R’s 

requirements, Mr. Sammartino conceded his responsibility for failure to file any 

written objections. 

Notably, Mr. Sammartino provided no reason for his failure to attend two court 

hearings before the Magistrate Judges, initially denying knowledge of any hearing he 

missed, and later conceding he may have missed one. Nor did Mr. Sammartino 

Case 3:15-cv-02288-BAS-WVG Document 59 Filed 11/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 10
– 5 – 15cv2288

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

explain why sanctions, as recommended by Judge Gallo, would not be appropriate. 

He denied being incommunicative with Plaintiff’s counsel, a denial that is clearly 

belied by the record. And he failed to explain why he never filed any objections to 

Judge Gallo’s R&R.

Based on the foregoing facts, the Court now considers adoption of the R&R.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

The Court reviews de novo those portions of an R&R to which objections are 

made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or 

in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. “The 

statute makes it clear,” however, “that the district judge must review the magistrate 

judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not 

otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en 

banc) (emphasis in original); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 

1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding that where no objections were filed, the district 

court had no obligation to review the magistrate judge’s report). “Neither the 

Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and 

recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 

F.3d at 1121. This legal rule is well-established in the Ninth Circuit and this district. 

See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo 

review of a[n] R & R is only required when an objection is made to the R & R.”); 

Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting 

report in its entirety without review because neither party filed objections to the 

report despite the opportunity to do so); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 

1155, 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.).

B. Analysis

Neither party has objected to the R&R’s finding or recommendations. 

Consequently, the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See Reyna-Tapia, 

Case 3:15-cv-02288-BAS-WVG Document 59 Filed 11/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 10
– 6 – 15cv2288

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

328 F.3d at 1121. Nonetheless, the Court has conducted a de novo review of 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions and the R&R. (ECF Nos. 45, 54.)

First, based on the Court’s de novo review as well as on the hearing on the 

order to show cause, the Court finds that Judge Gallo correctly concluded that

Defendants Court Gettel and Conix VRC, LLC’s “sustained misconduct, failures, 

and violations amounting to willfulness and bad faith,” requires the imposition of 

terminating sanctions, striking of Defendants’ Answers, and the entry of default 

judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(vi.). (ECF No. 54 at 22.) Defendants 

failed to provide requested discovery to Plaintiff over the duration of this case, and 

two years after the case was filed, discovery still has not been provided. Although 

the full extent of Defendants Gettel and Conix VRC, LLC’s knowledge of the 

discovery issues in this case is not clear, these Defendants were served with a 

summons and, at a minimum, were well aware that they were being sued. Mr. 

Sammartino’s representations to the Court confirm that his clients likely had at least 

some knowledge of Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Taking Mr. Sammartino’s word 

that his client “stonewalled” him or misled him, such conduct would amount to the 

willfulness or bad faith required to impose a default sanction for a party’s failure to 

obey a prior court order compelling discovery. See Hester v. Vision Airlines, Inc., 

687 F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th Cir. 2012). The Court finds especially compelling Mr. 

Sammartino’s concession at the hearing that terminating sanctions against his clients 

are appropriate. Moreover, as Judge Gallo observed, case dispositive sanctions

against a party are appropriate even if the violative conduct is solely the party’s 

attorney’s fault. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 633 (1962). This is 

because a party voluntarily chooses the attorney as its representative in a case. Id. at 

633. Here, Defendants’ counsel failed to fulfill multiple promises to Plaintiff’s 

counsel and to the Court to provide requested discovery and failed to comply with a 

court order compelling production. This conduct would provide an independent basis 

for imposing a default sanction. Both the conduct of Defendants and Mr. Sammartino

Case 3:15-cv-02288-BAS-WVG Document 59 Filed 11/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 10
– 7 – 15cv2288

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

resulted in substantial prejudice to the Plaintiff and its ability to move this case 

forward. 

Rather than entering default judgment at this time, however, the Court will 

direct the Clerk of the Court to enter default against Defendants Gettel and Conix 

VRC, LLC, particularly because (1) this case involves multiple defendants1, one of 

whom, Defendant Kathryn Nighswander

2

, is not in default, and (2) the Court lacks 

sufficient information regarding the damages to which Plaintiff may be entitled as 

part of a default judgment. 

Second, the Court also finds that Judge Gallo correctly concluded that 

Defendants and Mr. Sammartino should be jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff for 

$6,275 in total expenses incurred in its discovery motions. (ECF No. 54 at 22−28.) 

Because Plaintiff sought and was granted a court order by the former Magistrate 

Judge ordering Defendants to respond to discovery requests (ECF No. 44), Plaintiff 

is entitled to fees and costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A). Judge 

Gallo correctly concluded that Plaintiff is entitled to payment of $4,050 in fees 

 

1 The previous judge on this case, Judge Roger Benitez, denied Plaintiff’s 

motion for default judgment against Defendants 2485 Calle del Oro, LLC, Jeffrey H. 

Greenberg, and Lynette Moreno, who had default entered against them. (ECF No. 

25.) Judge Benitez determined that entering judgment to those defaulting defendants

“would not be proper” because “Defendants are similarly situated and the claims 

against them rest on the same legal theories.” (Id. at 3.) Under such circumstances, 

a court should typically wait until resolution of claims against non-defaulting 

defendants before entering a default judgment. Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069, 

1082-83 (9th Cir. 2012). Judge Benitez instructed that Plaintiff could file an 

amended motion for default judgment within 30 days of the resolution of the claims 

against the non-defaulting Defendants. (ECF No. 25 at 3.)

2 Plaintiff’s initial motion to compel and for sanctions expressly did not include 

Defendant Nighswander, but rather indicated that proceedings against her are 

currently stayed because of her pending bankruptcy. (ECF No. 42-1 at 2 n.1.) 

Accordingly, Plaintiff did not move to compel discovery responses from her (id.) and 

she was not subject to the discovery order Defendants Gettel and Conix VRC, LLC 

violated (ECF No. 44 at 1 n.1).

Case 3:15-cv-02288-BAS-WVG Document 59 Filed 11/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 10
– 8 – 15cv2288

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

incurred in meet and confer efforts with Mr. Sammartino, preparation of its motion 

to compel, and related tasks. Plaintiff is also entitled to $2,225 in expenses 

necessitated by the motion for sanctions (ECF No. 45) pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(C). 

This Rule mandates an award of expenses directly related to or caused by a party’s 

failure to obey a discovery order. Id.; Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 137 

S. Ct. 1178, 1183−84 (2017). Both Rule 37(a)(5)(A) and Rule 37(b)(2)(C) permit a 

court to require a party’s attorney to also pay expenses resulting from discovery 

misconduct. The record regarding Mr. Sammartino’s conduct in this case is clear. 

(See ECF No. 54.) In relevant part, Judge Gallo ordered Mr. Sammartino to 

personally appear at a hearing concerning Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 

47), but he failed to do so. This was the second time Mr. Sammartino failed to appear 

in this case. He earlier failed to appear at a telephonic status conference, without 

informing the Court, and instead relied on Plaintiff’s counsel to let the Court know 

that he would not be able to appear.

At this Court’s hearing on the order to show cause, Mr. Sammartino initially 

disavowed knowledge of court orders requiring him to appear in court related to the 

discovery dispute and disavowed knowledge of the R&R’s requirement to file written 

objections. This representation cannot be squared with the fact that Judge Gallo’s 

order and the R&R were entered on the electronic docket in this case, for which Mr. 

Sammartino has registered his email address – an address identical to Mr. 

Sammartino’s email address on file with the State Bar of California. (ECF No. 54 at 

32 n.19.) There is no doubt that Mr. Sammartino received the order, the R&R, and

any other docket entries relevant to the discovery dispute. The Court finds that Judge 

Gallo correctly concluded that Mr. Sammartino’s conduct warrants making him 

jointly and severally liable with his clients for payment of Plaintiff’s expenses. 

Third, the Court finds that Judge Gallo also correctly concluded that Mr. 

Sammartino is required to report to the California State Bar. California Business and 

Professions Code §6068(o)(3) requires California-licensed attorneys to self-report 

Case 3:15-cv-02288-BAS-WVG Document 59 Filed 11/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 10
– 9 – 15cv2288

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

imposition of judicial sanctions of $1,000 or more. Because this Court agrees that 

Mr. Sammartino is jointly and severally liable with his client for payment of expenses 

exceeding this amount as a discovery sanction, Mr. Sammartino is required to report. 

Because the statute requires the attorney to self-report, the Court declines in its 

discretion to follow the recommendation that a copy of this order be forwarded to the 

State Bar of California and, instead, will order Mr. Sammartino to self-report the 

judicial monetary sanction. 

Lastly, the Court declines in its discretion to impose criminal contempt 

sanctions against Mr. Sammartino. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 

F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983) (district court has the power to “accept, reject, or 

modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”

whether objections have been filed or not). 

III. CONCLUSION & ORDER

The Court HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. The Court ADOPTS IN PART AND DECLINES TO ADOPT IN 

PART THE R&R (ECF No. 54). The Court adopts the R&R as to all 

aspects except as to (a) the imposition of criminal contempt proceedings

against Mr. Sammartino and (b) any reporting under Cal. Bus. Prof. 

Code §6068(o)(3) that is not self-reporting by Mr. Sammartino.

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 45) is GRANTED.

3. Defendants Court Gettel and Conix VRC, LLC’s Answers to the 

Complaint (ECF Nos. 16, 18) ARE STRICKEN.

4. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED TO ENTER DEFAULT 

AGAINST Defendants Court Gettel and Conix VRC, LLC. 

5. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file a motion for default judgment 

against all defaulting Defendants in this case no later than December 

1, 2017. Such motion should address the damages Plaintiff seeks as part 

of a default judgment. Plaintiff is directed to address how this Court 

Case 3:15-cv-02288-BAS-WVG Document 59 Filed 11/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 10
– 10 – 15cv2288

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

should treat Defendant Nighswander, who is not in default.

6. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, Defendants Court Gettel 

and Conix VRC, LLC and Mr. Sammartino, are ORDERED TO PAY 

Plaintiff’s expenses of $6,275.00, which is to be paid jointly and 

severally.

7. Mr. Sammartino is ORDERED to self-report to the State Bar of 

California the foregoing monetary sanction. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 3, 2017

Case 3:15-cv-02288-BAS-WVG Document 59 Filed 11/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 10