Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00585/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00585-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

ORDER (No. 3:15-cv-00585-LB) 1

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

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

JOSE CRUZ et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:15-cv-00585-LB 

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR 

SANCTIONS

Re: ECF No. 74

INTRODUCTION

The defendant, Aurora Loan Services, LLC, moves for sanctions alleging that the plaintiffs, 

Jose Cruz and Blanca Cruz, failed to attend depositions, respond to interrogatories, and comply 

with the court’s order to prosecute their case.1 Aurora further alleges that these failures were 

willful and in bad faith and requests that the court enter terminating sanctions and award Aurora

reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(b), 37(b), and 

37(d) and the Court's inherent authority.

2

The court grants in part and denies in part Aurora’s

 

1 Motion – ECF No. 74 at 3. Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); 

pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.

2

Id. at 3

Case 3:15-cv-00585-LB Document 86 Filed 05/09/16 Page 1 of 12
ORDER (No. 3:15-cv-00585-LB) 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

motion for sanctions and awards $8,185.31 as an interim sanction. The court sets a further status 

conference for May 19, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. and orders the Cruzes to appear in person.

STATEMENT

In December 2014, the Cruzes sued Aurora in state court.

3 Aurora removed the action in early 

February, 2015.4 After two motions to dismiss and one amended complaint, the following claims 

survive: 1) intentional misrepresentation and 2) misrepresentation - false promise.5

The court entered its initial scheduling order on August 28, 2015.6That order referred the case 

to the court’s mediation program, set an ADR completion date of January 14, 2016, and set a 

further case-management conference for January 14, 2016.7 On October 21, 2015, the ADR unit 

referred the case for mediation with Victor Haydell at Farella Braun + Martell.8 According to the 

parties’ joint case-management statement filed on January 7, 2016, 1) the Cruzes’s counsel, Mr. 

Sargetis, was unable to reach the Cruzes in November and December 2015, 2) the mediator thus 

cancelled the parties’ mediation that was set for December 16, 2015, 3) the Cruzes failed to appear 

at their deposition that Aurora set for December 17, 2015, resulting in costs that Aurora wants the 

plaintiffs to reimburse, and 4) Aurora would re-notice the depositions.9 At the case-management 

conference on January 14, 2016, Mr. Sargetis did not appear in person or by telephone, even 

though he moved on January 7 to appear by telephone.10 The court set a further case-management 

conference on January 21, 2016 and directed Mr. Sargetis to appear; again, he did not.11 At the 

 

3 Notice of Removal – ECF No. 1 at 1-2

4

Id.

5

First Amended Complaint – ECF No. 31; Order Granting in Part & Denying in Part Defendant’s 

Motion to Dismiss – ECF No. 48. 

6 Order – ECF No. 50.

7

Id. at 2.

8 Notice – ECF No. 52.

9

Joint CMC Statement – ECF No. 54 at 2.

10 See Motion to Appear by Telephone – ECF No. 56; Order Granting Motion – ECF No. 57; 

Minute Entry – ECF No. 58.

11 Minute Entry – ECF No. 58; Minute Entry – ECF No. 59.

Case 3:15-cv-00585-LB Document 86 Filed 05/09/16 Page 2 of 12
ORDER (No. 3:15-cv-00585-LB) 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

January 21 case-management conference, Aurora notified the court that it had reset the depositions 

to February 25 and February 26, 2016.

Following the January 21 case-management conference, the court ordered the Cruzes to show 

cause why they have not appeared for their depositions and failed to participate in their 

mediation.12 The court instructed the Cruzes that it is their responsibility to stay informed about 

the proceedings and ordered them to do so.13 The court warned them that failing to appear for their 

depositions and court-ordered mediation could result in sanctions being imposed against them, 

including monetary sanctions in the form of Aurora’s costs and fees expended in scheduling 

depositions.14 The court further warned the Cruzes that their failure to participate in their litigation 

may result in the court’s dismissing the case for failure to prosecute it.15 The court set a hearing 

date for February 18, 2016 and directed Mr. Sargetis to file an explanation by February 11, 2016.16

The Cruzes responded to the order to show cause on February 11 by way of Mr. Sargetis’s 

declaration.

17 Mr. Sargetis declared that he had phone conversations with the Cruzes and that they 

would attend the depositions on February 25 and 26.18 He also declared that he scheduled a 

conference with the Cruzes to review and respond to the written discovery propounded by

Aurora.19 Finally, Mr. Sargetis’s paralegal, Ms. Pillado, declared that Mr. Sargetis’s failure to 

appear at the January 14 and 24 case-management conferences was not his fault, but an accidental 

oversight caused by other obligations.20

 

12 Order to Show Cause – ECF No. 60 at 2. 

13 Id.

14 Id.

15 Id.

16 Id.

17 Sargetis Decl. – ECF No. 62; Pillado Decl. – ECF No. 63.

18 Sargetis Decl. ¶ 3.

19 Id. ¶ 4.

20 Pillado Decl. ¶¶3-7.

Case 3:15-cv-00585-LB Document 86 Filed 05/09/16 Page 3 of 12
ORDER (No. 3:15-cv-00585-LB) 4

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

Despite Mr. Sargetis’s declaration to the contrary, the Cruzes did not show up for the noticed 

depositions or respond to the written discovery requests.

21 The parties’ counsel appeared for the 

February 25, 2016 deposition, but the Cruzes did not.22 Because of the Cruzes’s nonappearance, 

counsel agreed to cancel the February 26 deposition.23 The Cruzes did not respond to Mr. 

Sargetis’s request to prepare responses, and they did not respond to Aurora’s requests for 

discovery, including interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for production.

24

The court held a further case-management conference on March 17, 2016.25 The parties 

informed the court that Mr. Sargetis intended to file a motion to withdraw as counsel and that 

Aurora intended to file a motion for sanctions.26 Mr. Sargetis filed his unopposed motion to 

withdraw, which the court granted.

27 Aurora filed the current motion for sanctions on March 30, 

2015.28 Aurora seeks $19,218.81 in fees and costs for the Cruzes’ failure to comply with the 

court’s order to prosecute their case, to appear for their depositions, and to respond to Aurora’s 

interrogatories.29

The court ordered Mr. Sargetis to inform the Cruzes of the pending motions, serve on them 

copies of the motions, case-management filings, and the court’s orders, ordered the Cruzes to 

appear at the May 5 hearing, and warned them that their failure to prosecute may result in 

 

21 Joint Case Management Statement – ECF No. 65 at 2

22 Id.

23 Id.

24 Id.

25 Minute Entry – ECF No. 70. 

26 Joint Case Management Statement – ECF No. 65 at 2; Minute Entry – ECF No. 70.

27 Motion to Withdraw – ECF No. 71; Statement of Non-Opposition – ECF No. 78; Order 

Granting Motion to Withdraw – ECF No. 85.

28 Motion for Sanctions – ECF No. 74.

29 Id. at 7-11.

Case 3:15-cv-00585-LB Document 86 Filed 05/09/16 Page 4 of 12
ORDER (No. 3:15-cv-00585-LB) 5

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

sanctions and dismissal.30 Mr. Sargetis filed proof of service on the Cruzes on April 27, 2016.31

The court held a hearing on May 5, 2016.32 The Cruzes did not appear.33

ANALYSIS

1. Legal Standard

When a district court decides to impose sanctions or discipline, it must clearly delineate under 

which authority it acts to ensure that the attendant requirements are met. Weissman v. Quail 

Lodge, Inc., 179 F.3d 1194, 1200 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Keegan Management Co. Sec. Litig., 78 

F.3d 431, 435 (9th Cir. 1996) (“For a sanction to be validly imposed, the conduct must be 

sanctionable under the authority relied on.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). “The 

imposition of sanctions requires a statement of reasons for the district court’s action, including the 

need for the particular sanctions imposed.” Couveau v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 218 F.3d 1078, 1081 

(9th Cir. 2000) (“The imposition of sanctions requires a statement of reasons for the district

court’s action, including the need for the particular sanctions imposed.”) (citing G.J.B. & Assocs., 

Inc. v. Singleton, 913 F.2d 824, 830 (10th Cir. 1990) (“If the district court ultimately imposes 

sanctions, detailed findings are necessary to identify the objectionable conduct and provide for 

meaningful appellate review.”)).

1.1 Terminating sanctions

1.1.1 Dismissal under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(b), 37(b) and (d)

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that if the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to 

comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim 

against it. Such an order to dismiss operates as an adjudication on the merits. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

 

30 Order – ECF No. 81.

31 Proof of Service – ECF No. 82.

32 Minute Entry – ECF No. 84.

33 Id.

Case 3:15-cv-00585-LB Document 86 Filed 05/09/16 Page 5 of 12
ORDER (No. 3:15-cv-00585-LB) 6

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

“Rule 41(b) specifically provides that the failure of the plaintiff to prosecute his claim is 

grounds for involuntary dismissal of the action. The courts have read this rule to require 

prosecution with ‘reasonable diligence’ if a plaintiff is to avoid dismissal.” Anderson v. Air W., 

Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976) (citing Ballew v. Southern Pacific Co., 428 F.2d 787 (9th 

Cir. 1970)). “This court has consistently held that the failure to prosecute diligently is sufficient by 

itself to justify a dismissal, even in the absence of a showing of actual prejudice to the defendant 

from the failure.” Anderson, 542 F.2d 522 at 524 (internal citation omitted). “The law presumes 

injury from unreasonable delay.” Id. at 524 (citing States Steamship Co. v. Philippine Air Lines, 

426 F.2d 803, 804 (9th Cir. 1970)). “However, this presumption of prejudice is a rebuttable one 

and if there is a showing that no actual prejudice occurred, that factor should be considered when 

determining whether the trial court exercised sound discretion.” Id. (citing Reizakis v. Loy, 490 

F.2d 1132 (4th Cir. 1974).

In Yourish v. California Amplifier, the Ninth Circuit applied the same five-factor standard 

considered in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b) case in a Rule 41(b) case. 191 F.3d 983 (9th 

Cir. 1999). “Under our precedents, in order for a court to dismiss a case as a sanction, the district 

court must consider five factors: ‘(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; 

(2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public 

policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 

alternatives.’” Yourish, 191 F.3d 983 at 990 (citing Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 

399 (9th Cir.1998) (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.1986))). “We 

‘may affirm a dismissal where at least four factors support dismissal, . . . or where at least three 

factors ‘strongly’ support dismissal.’” Id. (citing Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 

399 (9th Cir.1998)) (internal citation omitted.) “Although it is preferred, it is not required that the 

district court make explicit findings in order to show that it has considered these factors and we 

may review the record independently to determine if the district court has abused its discretion.” 

Id. (internal citation omitted.)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d) provides that the court may order, on motion, for 

sanctions if a party fails (i) to appear for that party's deposition after being served with proper 

Case 3:15-cv-00585-LB Document 86 Filed 05/09/16 Page 6 of 12
ORDER (No. 3:15-cv-00585-LB) 7

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

notice; or (ii) to serve its answers, objections, or written response after being properly served with 

interrogatories or a request for inspection. By reference to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b),

the type of sanctions available under Rule 37(d) includes (i) directing that the matters embraced in 

the order or other designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the action, as the 

prevailing party claims; (ii) prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing 

designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence; (iii) striking 

pleadings in whole or in part; (iv) staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed; (v) 

dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part; or (vi) rendering a default judgment 

against the disobedient party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vi). In addition, under Rule 37(d), a 

motion for sanctions for failing to answer or respond must include a certification that the movant 

has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the party failing to act in an effort to obtain 

the answer or response without court action. Id. 37(d)(1)(B).

The Ninth Circuit has “constructed a five-part test, with three subparts to the fifth part, to 

determine whether a case-dispositive sanction under Rule 37(b)(2) is just: ‘(1) the public’s interest 

in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its dockets; (3) the risk of 

prejudice to the party seeking sanctions; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 

merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.’” Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. 

New Images of Beverly Hills, 482 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Jorgensen, 320 F.3d at 

912 (setting forth five-factor test set forth in Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th 

Cir. 1987)). “The sub-parts of the fifth factor are whether the court has considered lesser sanctions, 

whether it tried them, and whether it warned the recalcitrant party about the possibility of casedispositive sanctions.” Id. (citing Valley Eng’rs v. Electric Eng’g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th 

Cir. 1998)).34

 

34 “This ‘test,’” the Ninth Circuit has explained, “is not mechanical.” Connecticut General, 482 

F.3d at 1096. “It provides the district court with a way to think about what to do, not a set of 

conditions precedent for sanctions or a script that the district court must follow:

Like most elaborate multifactor tests, our test has not been what it appears to be, a 

mechanical means of determining what discovery sanction is just. The list of factors 

Case 3:15-cv-00585-LB Document 86 Filed 05/09/16 Page 7 of 12
ORDER (No. 3:15-cv-00585-LB) 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

“A terminating sanction, whether default judgment against a defendant or dismissal of a 

plaintiff’s action, is very severe.” Connecticut General Life Ins. Co., 482 F.3d at 1096. “Only 

‘willfulness, bad faith, and fault’ justify terminating sanctions.” Id. (quoting Jorgensen v. 

Cassiday, 320 F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir. 2003)). 

A party suffers sufficient prejudice to warrant case-dispositive sanctions where the disobedient 

party’s actions “impair the defendant’s ability to go to trial or threaten to interfere with the rightful 

decision of the case.” See in re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 

F.3d 1217, 1227 (9th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted). For example, failure to produce documents as 

ordered is by itself prejudice enough to authorize terminating sanctions. See Computer Task Grp.,

Inc. v. Brotby, 364 F.3d 1112, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004).

Before ordering a terminating sanction, a court must warn the plaintiff and try other sanctions 

first. For example, a district court’s failure to warn a party that dismissal is being considered as a 

sanction weighs heavily against the sanction. U.S. for Use and Ben. of Wiltec Guam, Inc. v. 

Kahaluu Const. Co., Inc., 857 F.2d 600, 605 (9th Cir. 1988). Although “[a]n explicit warning is 

not always required, at least in a case involving ‘egregious circumstances,’” “[i]n other 

circumstances, the failure to warn may place the district court’s order in serious jeopardy.” Id. 

(citing Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33). Indeed, “‘[f]ailure to warn has frequently been a contributing 

factor in [Ninth Circuit] decisions to reverse orders of dismissal.’” Id. (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d 

at 133 (citing cases)). 

1.1.2 Courts’ inherent authority

Courts are invested with inherent powers that are “governed not by rule or statute but by the 

control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and 

 

amounts to a way for a district judge to think about what to do, not a series of conditions 

precedent before the judge can do anything, and not a script for making what the district 

judge does appeal-proof.

Valley Eng’rs, 158 F.3d at 1057.

Case 3:15-cv-00585-LB Document 86 Filed 05/09/16 Page 8 of 12
ORDER (No. 3:15-cv-00585-LB) 9

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

expeditious disposition of cases.” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991) (quoting Link 

v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962)). Although the caselaw is somewhat equivocal 

about the state of mind required to impose sanctions under the court’s inherent power, see United 

Medical Supply Co., Inc. v. U.S., 77 Fed. Cl. 257, 266-67 (Fed. Cl. 2007), the Ninth Circuit has 

concluded that sanctions are available under the court’s inherent power if “preceded by a finding 

of bad faith, or conduct tantamount to bad faith,” such as recklessness “combined with an 

additional factor such as frivolousness, harassment, or an improper purpose.” Fink v. Gomez, 239 

F.3d 989, 994 (9th Cir. 2001); see Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1134 (9th Cir. 2001).

1.2 Monetary sanctions: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(d)(3) and (b)(2)(C)

Rules 37(d)(3) and (b)(2)(C) provide that courts must require the party failing to act, the 

attorney advising that party, or both to pay to award the reasonable expenses, including attorney's 

fees, caused by the failure, unless the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances 

make an award of expenses unjust. “Under Rule 37(b)(2), which has the same language as Rule 

37(d), the burden of showing substantial justification and special circumstances is on the party 

being sanctioned.” Hyde & Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir. 1994), as amended (July 

25, 1994) (citing Falstaff Brewing Corp. v. Miller Brewing Co., 702 F.2d 770, 784 (9th Cir.1983)) 

Federal courts use the lodestar method to determine a reasonable attorney’s fee award. Hensley

v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983); Jordan v. Multnomah Cnty., 815 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th 

Cir. 1987). The court calculates a “lodestar amount” by multiplying the number of hours counsel 

reasonably spent on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate. See Morales v. City of San Rafael, 

96 F.3d 359, 363 (9th Cir. 1996). The burden of proving that claimed rates and number of hours 

worked are reasonable is on the party seeking the fee award. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 897

(1984). The court may adjust the award from the lodestar figure upon consideration of additional 

factors that may bear upon reasonableness. Kerr v. Screen Guild Extras, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th 

Cir. 1975). 

Case 3:15-cv-00585-LB Document 86 Filed 05/09/16 Page 9 of 12
ORDER (No. 3:15-cv-00585-LB) 10

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

2. Discussion

The Cruzes have failed to participate in their litigation. The Cruzes were unreachable in 

December 2015, resulting in cancellation of the parties’ court-ordered mediation.35 The Cruzes 

also failed to appear at their December depositions.36 Then, in January 2016, the court ordered the 

Cruzes to show cause for their failure to appear at the depositions and their failure to attend 

mediation.37 The court warned the Cruzes that failing to appear for court-ordered mediation and 

depositions could result in monetary and terminating sanctions.38 Mr. Sargetis responded to the 

court’s order by way of declaration, informing the court that he had spoken to the Cruzes, they 

would attend their February 2016 depositions, and they would confer with Mr. Sargetis regarding 

their responses to Aurora’s written discovery requests.39 Nevertheless, the Cruzes did not attend 

the February depositions, respond to Mr. Sargetis’s request to prepare discovery responses, or 

respond to Aurora’s requests for discovery.40 The Cruzes also did not appear at the May 5, 2016 

hearing, despite additional court warnings and service of the current motions and other papers.

41

2.1 The court imposes monetary sanctions of $8,185.31

Aurora’s records support the costs and lodestar amounts they request as sanctions. Under the 

standards set forth above, the court awards the monetary sanctions as they relate to the Cruzes’ 

failure to attend their depositions, at total of $8,185.31 ($876.61 in court-reporter expenses and 

$7308.50 in attorney’s fees).

42 The court warned the Cruzes repeatedly about the consequences of 

not participating in the litigation, and as part of that process, set forth the legal standards, gave 

detailed context in the form of the chronology of bad behavior, and gave the Cruzes multiple 

 

35 Joint CMC Statement – ECF No. 54 at 2.

36 Id.

37 Order to Show Cause – ECF No. 60 at 2.

38 Id.

39 Sargetis Decl. – ECF No. 62.

40 Joint Case Management Statement – ECF No. 65 at 2.

41 Order – ECF No. 81; Proof of Service – ECF No. 82; Minute Entry – ECF No. 84.

42 Balser Decl. – ECF No. 75, ¶¶ 14, 17.

Case 3:15-cv-00585-LB Document 86 Filed 05/09/16 Page 10 of 12
ORDER (No. 3:15-cv-00585-LB) 11

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

opportunities to participate in the litigation despite their prior failure to do so. See Statement, 

supra. Despite those warnings, they refused to participate and failed to attend two sets of 

depositions. The court believes the amounts of the monetary sanctions are appropriate given these 

failures. The hours spent by Aurora’s counsel are reasonable, and Aurora’s counsel’s rates also are 

reasonable in comparison with others in the community. The Cruzes must pay the $8,185.31 in 

costs and fees that Aurora incurred due to the Cruzes’ failure to attend their depositions.

The court awards $8,185.31 in costs and fees for discovery abuses, leaving an additional 

$11,033.50 in requested fees for time spent drafting interrogatories and the current motion for 

sanctions. As described below, the court sets a hearing for May 19, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. If the Cruzes 

again do not appear, they risk the court’s awarding the remaining balance to Aurora.

2.2 The court does not impose terminating sanctions and orders the Cruzes to show cause

Aurora has also made its record to support terminating sanctions against the Cruzes, but, given 

the need for escalating sanctions, the court does not now dismiss the case. 

Before orders terminating sanctions (or the remaining monetary sanctions, above) the court 

orders the Cruzes to show cause why they have failed to prosecute their case, attend their 

depositions, and respond to Aurora’s interrogatories. The court warns the Cruzes that failure to 

show cause may result in the dismissal of their case and an additional $11,033.50 in monetary 

sanctions. The court sets a hearing for May 19, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. and directs the Cruzes to attend 

in person. The court also directs the Cruzes’ former attorney, Mr. Sargetis, to serve this order on 

the Cruzes and file proof of service by May 12, 2016.

CONCLUSION

The court grants in part and denies in part Aurora’s motion for sanctions. The court awards 

$8,185.31 in costs and fees to Aurora, reserving for later the remaining fee balance of $11,033.50. 

The court does not order terminating sanctions at this time. The court sets a hearing for May 19, 

2016 at 9:30 a.m. and orders the Cruzes to attend in person and to show cause. The court also 

directs Mr. Sargetis to serve this order on the Cruzes and file proof of service by May 12, 2016.

Case 3:15-cv-00585-LB Document 86 Filed 05/09/16 Page 11 of 12
ORDER (No. 3:15-cv-00585-LB) 12

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

The Cruzes are warned that failure to appear on May 19 means that they risk imposition of 

additional fees of $11,033.50 and dismissal of their case for failure to prosecute it.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2016

______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00585-LB Document 86 Filed 05/09/16 Page 12 of 12