Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00940/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00940-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection 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

1

 "Sanctions. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that

subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may . . . impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law

firms, or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation." Rule 11(c). Courtinitiated monetary sanctions are payable as a fine to the court.

- 1 - 05cv0940

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW T. THOMASSON, REBECCA J.

THOMASSON, MACDONALD P.

TAYLOR JR., and CHENOA R. TAYLOR,

on behalf of themselves and all others

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 05cv0940-LAB (CAB)

NOTICE AND ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE RE RULE 11 SANCTIONS

vs.

GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,

and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive,

Defendants.

In an Order filed concurrently herewith, the court denies plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application For

Leave To File Motions For Reconsideration ("Application"). In consideration of the gratuitous and

unfounded accusations of misconduct bythe undersigned District Judge in the Declaration of plaintiffs'

pro hac vice counsel, Robert L. Arelo, Esq., filed in support of the Application, Mr. Arleo is hereby

summoned to personally appear before the undersigned District Judge to show cause why he should

not be monetarily sanctioned1 for violations of FED.R.CIV.P. ("Rule") 11(b):

Representations to Court. By presenting to the court (whether by

signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written

motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying

that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief,

formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, --

. . .

Case 3:05-cv-00940-JAH-KSC Document 202 Filed 08/09/07 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

- 2 - 05cv0940

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass

or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of

litigation; . . .

(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary

support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary

support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or

discovery; . . .

"On its own initiative, the court may enter an order describing the specific conduct that appears

to violate subdivision (b) and directing an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why it has not

violated subdivision (b) with respect thereto." Rule 11(c)(1)(B). The court deems the following

accusations in Mr. Arleo's July 30, 2007 Declaration to violate Rule 11(b)(1), (3). The representations

are not only objectively unreasonable but also "akin to contempt of court," warranting the imposition

of sua sponte Rule 11 sanctions. See United Nat'l Ins. Co. v. R&D Latex Corp., 242 F.3d 1102, 1118

(9th Cir. 2001); see also Barber v. Miller, 146 F.3d 707, 711 (9th Cir. 1998) ("Nothing in the Rule or

the history of the 1993 amendments prevents the district court from taking this action after judgment").

Mr. Arleo purports to advance as "facts" in his sworn Declaration, among other things: 

Importantly, I have appeared before some federal judges who simply

view FDCPA Plaintiffs as deadbeats who should be paying their bills

instead of burdening the federal courts with claims of violations of the

FDCPA by debt collectors attempting to collect their debts. Based

upon the contents of the Friday the 13th Order by this Court, I can

confidently state that the Court herein quite unfortunately views my

clients in that exact same manner.

Dkt No. 198, 2:15-19.

Obviously, the Court herein has referred in bold to these 3 telephone

calls for the clear purpose of trivializing the herein action for its own

convenience.

Dkt No. 198, 3:23-24.

To assert that the Plaintiffs herein allegedly invoked this strategy in

order to impermissibly convert its opposition to its own motion for

summary judgment is patently ridiculous and simply further clear and

unmistakable evidence of the Court's consistent pattern of bias levied

against the Plaintiffs.

Dkt No. 198, 6:16-19.

The refusal by this Court to consider the factual merits of the contents

of these putative class members [sic] demonstrates a recklessness far

beyond any alleged recklessness, which the Court accuses me of in

certain portions of its Friday the 13th Order.

Case 3:05-cv-00940-JAH-KSC Document 202 Filed 08/09/07 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 - 05cv0940

Dkt No. 198, 9:17-19.

As set forth above, it is my contention that the Court herein is

absolutely and undeniably biased against the Plaintiffs and views each

as debtors who should simply shut up and pay up. Unfortunately, this

is not the first time that I have experienced clear bias against FDCPA

plaintiffs and a disdain for the FDPCA [sic] exhibited by a federal

district court.

Dkt No. 198, 13:23-26.

The court further incorporates by reference the pertinent portions of its Order Denying Ex

Parte Application alluding to Mr. Arleo's contemptuous representations in his July 30, 3007

Declaration. Mr. Arleo is accordingly on notice of the conduct this court deems to be sanctionable

and is ordered to show cause why he has not violated Rule 11 through his egregious representations

and irresponsible ad hominem attack on this court's integrity. 

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. On September 4, 2007 at 10:30 a.m., Mr. Arleo shall personally appear in Courtroom 9

of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, 940 Front Street, San Diego,

California 92101 to show cause why the court should not impose monetary sanctions against him for

the offending conduct described herein.

2. Failure to personally appear as ordered will result in the issuance of a no-bail bench

warrant for his arrest.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 9, 2007

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

Case 3:05-cv-00940-JAH-KSC Document 202 Filed 08/09/07 Page 3 of 3