Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02090/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02090-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights 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

Unless otherwise noted, all further references to “Rule” or 1

“Rules are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

MELISSA WHEELER,

NO. CIV. S 03-2090 MCE GGH

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

CSK AUTO, INC., and DOES 1

through 100, inclusive,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

 On August 24, 2005, after previously filing a similar

motion that was improperly noticed, Larry Schapiro, Plaintiff’s

counsel in this matter, filed a Notice of Motion for Relief from

Entry of Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure1

60(b). In that Notice of Motion, which is now before the Court,

attorney Schapiro states that he was unable to timely oppose

Defendant CSK Auto’s Motion for Summary Judgment, which

ultimately was granted on August 10, 2005, because of his

Case 2:03-cv-02090-MCE -GGH Document 56 Filed 09/28/05 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

Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, 2

this matter was deemed suitable for decision without oral

argument. E.D. Local Rule 78-230(h).

2

“physical ailments”. While Schapiro goes on to state that those

infirmities are “noted with more particularity” in a concurrently

filed declaration, no such declaration was submitted to the

court. In addition, the Notice of Motion also references a

supporting memorandum of points and authorities which was also

not filed.

On September 9, 2005, defense counsel Mark Van Brussel filed

a declaration, in response to Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion, which

confirmed that the supporting papers referenced in Plaintiff’s

Notice of Motion were never provided to him. Mr. Van Brussel

goes on to state that he called attorney Schapiro about this

omission. According to defense counsel, Schapiro advised him

that he had not prepared any additional papers and asked for an

extension of time to do so. Mr. Van Brussel declined the request

for an extension. No additional papers have been filed by

attorney Schapiro since that time. In addition, Mr. Schapiro has

taken no steps to either continue this motion or to remove it

from the Court’s calendar.

Plaintiff’s motion as constituted includes no facts or

argument to support any claim that the judgment entered herein be

vacated pursuant to Rule 60(b). The motion is accordingly

DENIED.2

Under the circumstances counsel for the defense has

requested that sanctions be imposed on attorney Schapiro for

filing a patently untenable motion. Rule 11 makes every

Case 2:03-cv-02090-MCE -GGH Document 56 Filed 09/28/05 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

signature on a pleading, written motion or other paper a

certification of the merits of the document. Rule 11 authorizes

sanctions to, inter alia, deter baseless filings made without

factual foundation. Zaldivar v. City of Los Angeles, 780 F.2d

823. 831 (9 Cir. 1986). The award of such sanctions are within th

the Court’s discretion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c).

Given the utter lack of any substantiation for the instant

motion, and attorney Schapiro’s abject failure to remedy the

situation even after the shortcomings of his motion were

expressly brought to his attention by opposing counsel, the Court

does conclude that sanctions are in order for defense counsel

having to respond to the motion. While attorney Van Brussel asks

for a total of $756.00 for time expended for that purpose

(consisting of 2.4 hours of time at a discounted hourly rate of

$315.00), in the Court’s view that amount is excessive given the

circumstances of this motion. Attorney Schapiro shall pay the

sum of $250.00 in sanctions to Mr. Van Brussel and his firm,

Seyfarth Shaw LLP. Those sanctions shall be remitted not more

than ten (10) days following the date of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 28, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-02090-MCE -GGH Document 56 Filed 09/28/05 Page 3 of 3