Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02639/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02639-23/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 15:2(a) Fair Labor Standards 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KUANG XUAN LIU, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WIN WOO TRADING, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-02639-KAW 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' 

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST 

WIN WOO DEFENDANTS AND 

COUNSEL

Re: Dkt. No. 163

On March 17, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions against the Win Woo 

Defendants and their attorney of record, Margaret J. Grover, for allegedly perpetuating a fraud on 

the court in connection with Defendant Jia Tun Zheng’s declaration in support of Defendants’ 

motions for summary judgment. (Pls.’ Mot., Dkt. No. 163 at 2.) 

Plaintiffs filed the motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(h). Id. Rule 

56(h) permits the court to impose sanctions on a party who submitted an affidavit or declaration in 

support of a motion for summary judgment found to be in bad faith. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(h). Here, 

Defendants withdrew their argument that Safety Trucking and Win Woo were separate businesses

on March 10, 2016—seven days before the motion for sanctions was filed. (See Defs.’ Opp’n, 

Dkt. No. 165 at 3.) Further, Defendants contend that they were unaware that documents existed 

that created a triable issue of fact regarding the separation of the businesses when the motions for 

summary judgment were filed. Id. at 2. Since Defendants withdrew their argument shortly after 

becoming aware that time records existed that appeared to list Win Woo as the payor, there is no 

finding of bad faith under Rule 56.

Alternatively, Plaintiffs may seek sanctions for the purported wrongdoing under Rule 11. 

Rule 11 requires that a motion for sanctions “be served under Rule 5, but it must not be filed or be 

Case 4:14-cv-02639-KAW Document 168 Filed 04/12/16 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

presented to the court if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or 

appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or within another time the court sets.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 11(c)(2). Here, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs did not serve the motion on opposing 

counsel before it was filed. (Decl. of Margaret J. Grover, Dkt. No. 165-1 ¶ 17.) Plaintiffs do not 

dispute this assertion, but instead contend that a meet and confer was not required because the 

motion was filed under Rule 56(h). (Pls.’ Reply, Dkt. No. 167 at 1.) The Court disagrees.

At the March 8, 2016 case management conference, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to meet 

and confer with the Win Woo Defendants prior to filing a motion for sanctions. Pursuant to the 

Northern District Guidelines for Professional Conduct, “[m]otions should be filed or opposed only 

in good faith and when the issue cannot be otherwise resolved.” (See Northern District Guidelines 

for Professional Conduct ¶ 10.) This requires that a party meet and confer prior to filing a motion

for sanctions. See id. at ¶ 10(a). The Court admonishes Plaintiffs’ counsel for failing to comply 

with this court order and the district’s Guidelines, but declines to impose sanctions at this time. 

Plaintiffs are not to file any other motions prior to engaging in a good faith meet and confer effort.

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 12, 2016

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:14-cv-02639-KAW Document 168 Filed 04/12/16 Page 2 of 2