Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-06852/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-06852-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

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

THERESA BROOKE,

Plaintiff,

v.

RIHH LP,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-06852-SI 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

SANCTIONS

Dkt. No. 22

On February 19, 2020, plaintiff filed a notice with the Court (the “First Notice”), to which 

defendant objected. Dkt. No. 12 (Notice); Dkt. No. 13 (Objections). The Court entered an order on 

February 28, 2020 striking the First Notice as improper because it did not fall into any category of 

filings listed in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Northern District Civil Local Rules. Dkt. 

No. 14 at 1 (Order).

On March 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed another notice (the “Second Notice”) and, again,

defendant objected. Dkt. No. 18 (Notice); Dkt. No. 19 (Objection). On March 26, 2020, the Court 

entered an order again striking plaintiff’s Second Notice as improper. Dkt. No. 20 (Order).

On March 29, 2020, defendant filed the instant motion for sanctions in the amount of $2,025 

pursuant to Local Rule 1-4

1

, 28 U.S.C. § 19272, and the Court’s inherent powers. Dkt. No. 22-1 at 

1 Under the Northern District of California Local Rule 1-4, “[f]ailure by counsel or a party 

to comply with any duly promulgated local rule or any Federal Rule may be a ground for imposition 

of any authorized sanction.” N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 1-4. “District courts have broad discretion in 

interpreting and applying their local rules.” Bertoli v. Wachovia Corp., No. C11-3432, 2011 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 110600, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2011) (citing Miranda v. Southern Pacific Transp. 

Co., 710 F.2d 516, 521 (9th Cir. 1983)).

2 The Court has discretion to order sanctions pursuant to § 1927 and under its inherent 

powers. Arroyo v. Cont'l Airlines, Inc., 173 Fed. Appx. 634, (9th Cir. 2006).

Case 3:19-cv-06852-SI Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 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

3 (Motion for Sanctions). Defendant argues plaintiff should be sanctioned for violating local court 

and federal rules by intentionally filing the frivolous Second Notice in bad faith, increasing 

defendant’s costs. Dkt. No. 22-1 at 4-5 (Motion for Sanctions).

Prior to filing the instant motion, defendant requested sanctions in its objection to the Second 

Notice. Dkt. No. 19 at 2, 5. The Court’s order on the Second Notice explicitly ordered plaintiff to 

adhere to local and federal rules or risk future sanctions. Dkt. No. 20 at 1 (Order). Under these 

circumstances, the current motion for sanctions is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 13, 2020

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-06852-SI Document 26 Filed 04/13/20 Page 2 of 2