Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01717/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01717-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

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 05cv1717 J (JMA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEADS CLUB, INC.

Plaintiff,

v.

PETERSON, ET AL.

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Case No. 05cv1717-J (JMA) 

ORDER: 

(1) ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE

JUDGE’S REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION; 

(2) GRANTING THE MOTION FOR

ORDER DIRECTING ISSUANCE OF

JUDGMENT [DOC. NO. 74]; 

(3) FINDING MR. BENTSON IN

CONTEMPT; AND

(4) ENTERING JUDGMENT IN

FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS

AGAINST MR. BENTSON.

Before the Court is Defendants Linda Peterson, Victoria Taus and Leads Pace

(“Defendants”) Motion for Order Directing the Issuance of Judgment. (Def. Req. for Order

Directing the Issuance of Judg.) Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler has issued a Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court: (1) find Plaintiff’s counsel James

Bentson in contempt of court for violating court orders; (2) modify the judgment entered in this

case on August 16, 2007 [doc. no. 76] to include the monetary sanctions against Mr. Bentson, or

enter a judgment based on the sanctions order; and (3) report the (a) sanctions and (b) finding of

contempt to the California State Bar Association. Mr. Bentson has not submitted objections to

Case 3:05-cv-01717-J-JMA Document 79 Filed 01/22/08 Page 1 of 8
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

2 05cv1717 J (JMA)

the R&R. For the reasons set forth below, this Court ADOPTS the R&R, GRANTS the Motion

for Order Directing Issuance of Judgment, FINDS Mr. Bentson in contempt, and ENTERS

JUDGMENT for the Defendants against Mr. Bentson in the amount of $4422.00.

Factual Background

The above-captioned action commenced on August 29, 2005 in the Superior Court of the

State of California and was removed to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1441(b). [Doc. No. 1.] 

Plaintiff is a “networking organization whose primary purpose is to provide an opportunity ... for

business owners, professionals, sales people and managers seeking to begin or expand a business

to get referrals to other professionals within the community.” (Compl. at 2.) Defendants entered

into contracts with Plaintiff to serve as its executive directors. (See Def. Mot. to Dismiss at 1.) 

In August of 2005, Defendants resigned from their positions as executive directors for

Plaintiff. (See Compl. at 4-5.) Upon resignation, Defendant Taus began to organize Defendant

Leads Pace, a small business networking operation. (See Def.’s Supp. Mot. to Dismiss at 1.)

Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants alleging breach of contractual duties, defamation, breach of

fiduciary duties, unfair competition and various related causes of action. (See Compl. at 9-38.)

Procedural Background

On August 30, 2006, Judge Adler issued a Notice and Order for Early Neutral Evaluation

Conference (“the Conference”) to be held on September 28, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. [See Doc. No. 57.] 

On the day of the Conference, Mr. Bentson arrived over an hour late without his client and fully

unprepared to discuss his case. [Doc. No. 71.] Mr. Bentson’s tardiness to the Conference caused

Defendants and their counsel to miss their return flight to Northern California. (Id. at 2.) As a

result, they had to wait in the airport for two-and-a-half hours. (Id.) During the Conference, Mr.

Bentson advised Judge Adler that he thought he had been substituted out of the case, but that he

would confirm the status of the case and his representation with his client . [See Doc. No. 61 at 2.] 

Judge Adler never received information from Plaintiff’s counsel of a substitution or of Plaintiff’s

interest in pursuing the claims alleged in the complaint. (See Order Recommending Order to

Show Cause Re: Dismissal at 4-5.)

Case 3:05-cv-01717-J-JMA Document 79 Filed 01/22/08 Page 2 of 8
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 05cv1717 J (JMA)

On October 10, 2006, Defendants submitted a Motion for Sanctions against the Plaintiff

Leads Club, Inc. and Mr. Bentson for costs incurred from attending the Conference. (See Def.

Mot. for Sanctions.) On January 24, 2007, Judge Adler issued an Order to Show Cause Why

Sanctions Should Not be Imposed for Mr. Bentson’s failure to comply with court orders. [Doc.

No. 67 at 2.] In the Order, Judge Adler directed Mr. Bentson to appear at a hearing on March 19,

2007 and to submit a declaration explaining his failure to comply on or before March 12, 2007. 

(Id.) Mr. Bentson failed to appear at the hearing and failed to submit a declaration. (Id.) 

As a result, on March 26, 2007, Judge Adler issued an Order Granting in Part Defendants’

Motion for Sanctions against Mr. Bentson in the amount of $4422.00 to be paid by April 25, 2007. 

[Doc. No. 71 at 5.] The sanctions were comprised of the attorney and transportation expenses

incurred by Defendants in connection with their appearance at the Conference. (See id. at 3.) 

On August 15, 2007, Defendants filed a Request for Order Directing Issuance of Judgment

against Mr. Bentson in the amount of $4422.00 so that they may enforce the sanctions order under

California's judgments laws. [Doc. No. 74 at 2.] According to Erin M. Adrian, counsel for

Defendants, Mr. Bentson failed to pay the sanctions by April 25, 2007, and had not paid the

sanctions as of August 14, 2007. (Id. at 3.) Ms. Adrian wrote to Mr. Bentson on June 7, 2007 and

demanded that he pay the sanctions ordered by Judge Alder. Ms. Adrian received no response to

her letter. (Id. at 3.)

On August 16, 2007, the Court entered a Judgment and Dismissal by Court Under Local

Civil Rule 41.1 for Want of Prosecution. [See Doc. No. 76.] Under Rule 41.1(a), the court may

dismiss an action for want of prosecution that has been pending for more than six months without

proceeding or discovery. S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 41.1(a). 

On September 17, 2007, Judge Adler issued an Order to Show Cause Why a Finding of

Contempt Should Not be Recommended to the District Judge. In the Order, Judge Adler directed

Mr. Bentson to appear at a hearing on October 1, 2007 and to submit a declaration explaining his

failure to pay sanctions by September 26, 2007. [Doc. No. 77 at 2.] Mr. Bentson failed to appear

at the hearing, and failed to submit a declaration. Mr. Bentson has not contacted the Magistrate

Court to explain his inaction or provided proof that the sanctions have now been paid. (R&R at 2.)

Case 3:05-cv-01717-J-JMA Document 79 Filed 01/22/08 Page 3 of 8
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 05cv1717 J (JMA)

Legal Standard

I. Reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s R&R

The district court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R are set forth in Rule

72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b);

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of

the report ... to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,

the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); see also

United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980). “When no objections are filed, the district

court may assume the correctness of the magistrate judge’s findings of fact and decide the motion

on the applicable law.” Johnson v. Nelson, 142 F. Supp. 2d 1215, 1217 (S.D. Cal. 2001). “Under

such circumstances, the Ninth Circuit has held that ‘a failure to file objections only relieves the trial

court of its burden to give de novo review to factual findings; conclusions of law must still be

reviewed de novo.’” Id. (quoting Barilla v. Ervin, 886 F.2d 1514, 1518 (9th Cir. 1989)). Mr.

Bentson has not filed objections to the R&R. Accordingly, this Court will only conduct a de novo

review of conclusions of law.

II. Finding of Contempt

 Federal courts have both inherent and statutory authority to punish contempt and to coerce

compliance with their orders. Int’l Union, UMWA v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 831-32 (1994)

(“Courts independently must be vested with power to impose ... submission to their lawful

mandates ... Courts thus have embraced an inherent contempt authority necessary to the exercise of

all others[.]” (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)); 18 U.S.C. § 401. 

Title 18 of United States Code Section 401 authorizes a court to punish contempt of its

authority for disobedience or resistance to its lawful order. 18 U.S.C. §401(3). The failure to pay a

sanction may constitute a willful violation of a court order. Perez-Farias v. Global Horizons, Inc.,

No. CV-05-3061-RHW, 2007 U.S. LEXIS 58576, at *28 (E.D. Wash. 2007) (citing Stars’ Desert

Inn Hotel & Country Club, Inc. v. Hwang, 105 F.3d 521, 524 (9th Cir. 1997), upholding $1.8

million default judgment on basis of failure to attend deposition and failure to pay sanction). 

“Disobedient conduct not shown to be outside the control of the litigant is sufficient to demonstrate

Case 3:05-cv-01717-J-JMA Document 79 Filed 01/22/08 Page 4 of 8
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

 Except sanctions for failure to make discovery or for monetary sanctions for less than one

thousand dollars. Cal. Bus. Prof. Code 6086.7(a)(3).

5 05cv1717 J (JMA)

willfulness, bad faith, or fault.” Id. (citation omitted). A clear violation of a court’s order to pay

sanctions may properly result in a contempt citation. Adriana Intern. Corp. v. Theoren, 913 F.2d

1406, 1417 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Civil Local Rule 83.1 provides, “Failure of counsel ... to comply with ... any order of the

court may be ground for ... any and all sanctions authorized by statute or rule or within the inherent

power of the court, including, without limitation, ... finding of contempt, [and the] imposition of

monetary sanctions[.]” S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 83.1(a). 

II. Enter Judgment Based on the Sanctions Order

Under state law, a sanctions order is enforceable in the same way as a money judgment. See

Cal. Civ. Pro §§ 680.230, 680.270, 699.510; Newland v. Sup.Ct., 40 Cal. App. 4th 608, 615 (Cal.

Ct. App. 1995). Accordingly, Defendants seek to enforce the sanctions order against Mr. Bentson

under California's judgments laws. (Def. Req. for Order Directing the Issuance of Judg. at 2.]

III. Report Finding of Contempt to the State Bar

Civil Local Rule 83.5 provides when an “attorney engaged in conduct which may warrant

discipline ... the court may ... refer the matter to the disciplinary body ... before which the attorney

has been admitted to practice.” S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 83.5(a) . In addition, California Business and

Professions Code directs courts to notify the State Bar Association of a final order of contempt

imposed against an attorney that may warrant discipline, and the imposition of judicial sanctions on

an attorney.1

 Cal. Bus. Prof. Code 6086.7(a)(1), (3). If the court notifies the State Bar, the court

must also alert the attorney of the report. Cal. Bus. Prof. Code 6086.7(b). The State Bar will

investigate the appropriateness of initiating disciplinary action against an attorney for a reported

matter. Cal. Bus. Prof. Code 6086.7(c).

Discussion

I. Mr. Bentson Is in Contempt 

 Since Judge Adler’s Order requiring Mr. Bentson to pay sanctions, Mr. Bentson has

violated three court orders (see R&R at 3). First, Mr. Bentson failed to pay the ordered sanctions. 

Case 3:05-cv-01717-J-JMA Document 79 Filed 01/22/08 Page 5 of 8
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

2

The Court notes that after the failure to properly appear at the Conference, Mr. Bentson violated

orders to appear for telephonic Case Management Conferences on two occasions. [Doc. No. 67 at 2.] 

The subsequent violations were not at issue in the Defendant’s request for sanctions. Thus, while the

subsequent violations are not dispositive for the finding of contempt for violating court orders that

specifically arose from Mr. Bentson’s failure to pay sanctions, the previous violations are further

support of Mr. Benton’s repeated disregard of court authority.

6 05cv1717 J (JMA)

(See id.) Then, Mr. Bentson violated Judge Adler’s September 17, 2007 Order by (1) failing to

appear to show cause why he should not be found in contempt and, (2) by failing to submit a

declaration explaining why he had not yet paid the sanctions.2

 (Id.) Thus, even when Mr. Bentson

was given the opportunity to explain his violations of court orders and provide any reason why he

should not be found in contempt, Mr. Bentson did nothing. (See id.) In sum, Mr. Bentson has

wholly ignored all direction by Judge Adler, and has failed to explain his inaction when provided

the opportunity to do so. 

Mr. Bentson’s repeated failure to follow court orders constitutes a “clear and open willful

disregard for authority and dignity of court.” See In re Grand Jury, 45 F. Supp. 556 (D. Del. 1942). 

There is no evidence that Mr. Bentson did not receive Judge Adler’s Orders or that Mr. Bentson

was unaware of what the Orders required him to do. Because Mr. Bentson has failed to appear

before the court and provide any explanation for the violations, it appears that Mr. Bentson has

simply chosen to ignore the orders and the authority of the court.

When imposing contempt sanctions, the Court should consider the character and magnitude

of the harm from continued contumacy, and the effectiveness of the sanction compelling the

desired result. See United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 304 (1947). Mr.

Bentson’s noncompliance with court orders shows a complete disregard for court authority. Due to

Mr. Bentson’s noncompliance, Defendants remain uncompensated for the costs incurred for

attending the Conference. Since Mr. Bentson has not argued, nor is there any reason for the Court

to believe that he lacks the financial resources to pay the sanctions, the $4422.00 judgment is an

appropriate amount to impose.

Accordingly, the Court FINDS Mr. Bentson in CONTEMPT for violating three specific

and definite court orders: (1) the Order to Pay Sanctions to Defendants [doc. no. 71] by failing to

pay the sanctions, (2) the Order to Show Cause Re Why a Finding of Contempt Should Not be

Case 3:05-cv-01717-J-JMA Document 79 Filed 01/22/08 Page 6 of 8
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

7 05cv1717 J (JMA)

Recommended to the District Judge [doc. no. 77] by failing to appear at the hearing, and (3) the

order to submit a declaration to Judge Adler [id. at 2].

II. Judgment Based on Sanction Order

The Court ENTERS a new, separate judgment based on the sanctions order amount. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(b), 59(e). In addition, the Court DIRECTS the clerk to prepare, sign and enter

judgment in favor of Defendants against Mr. Bentson in the amount of $4422.00. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 58(b)(1)(b).

III. Report Sanctions and Finding of Contempt to State Bar

Mr. Bentson has repeatedly failed to comply with court orders, and has yet to provide any

legal excuse, justification, or explanation for his inaction. Mr. Bentson’s disregard of court orders

is wholly inappropriate and unprofessional. Such disregard implicates attorney discipline, an

important state interest. See Canatella v. State of California, 404 F.3d 1106, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005)

(citation omitted). "States traditionally have exercised extensive control over the professional

conduct of attorneys," as each state has "an extremely important interest in maintaining and

assuring the professional conduct of the attorneys it licenses." Id. (quoting Middlesex County

Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 434 (1982)). Since the State of California

has an interest in maintaining the integrity of the legal profession and thus, the attorneys that it

licenses, they should be aware of Mr. Bentson’s behavior. Thus, the Court REPORTS (a) the

finding of contempt and (b) the judgment against Mr. Bentson based on the sanctions order to the

California State Bar. Mr. Bentson should be notified of such report.

Conclusion

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court ADOPT the R&R, GRANT

Defendants’ Motion for Order Directing Issuance of Judgment against Mr. Bentson, FIND Mr.

///

///

///

///

Case 3:05-cv-01717-J-JMA Document 79 Filed 01/22/08 Page 7 of 8
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

8 05cv1717 J (JMA)

Bentson in CONTEMPT of the Court and ENTER JUDGMENT for the Defendants against Mr.

Bentson in the amount of $4422.00. In addition, the Court will NOTIFY the California State Bar

and Mr. Bentson of (a) the finding of contempt and (b) the judgment against Mr. Bentson based on

the sanctions order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 22, 2008

HON. NAPOLEON A. JONES, JR.

United States District Judge

cc: Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler

 All Counsel of Record

Case 3:05-cv-01717-J-JMA Document 79 Filed 01/22/08 Page 8 of 8