Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04997/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04997-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Injunctive &amp; Declaratory Relief

---

Case No. 13-cv-04997 NC 

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

TINA DIAMOS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, 

LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-04997 NC 

ORDER DENYING ATTORNEY 

ALDON BOLANOS’ MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. No. 128

Plaintiff’s attorney Aldon Bolanos moves for reconsideration of the Court’s order 

imposing discovery sanctions on him in the amount of $7,701.00. See Dkt. No. 125. 

Bolanos claims that he and his client never consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate 

judge, that Bolanos was not attorney of record when the misconduct occurred, and that the 

appropriate parties to sanction were his client Tina Diamos and his colleague, attorney 

Walter Dauterman. Dkt. No. 128. Because Bolanos has not provided grounds for 

reversing the imposition of sanctions against him under the requirements of Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 60, his request for reconsideration is DENIED.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 22, 2016, the Court granted Diamos’ motion for voluntary dismissal of 

the sole remaining claim in her case without prejudice, but conditioned dismissal upon 

Diamos reimbursing Specialized $1,079.20, “in partial remedy for the discovery sanctions 

sought by Specialized in docket entries 102 and 103.” Dkt. No. 67 at 2. Specialized had

Case 3:13-cv-04997-NC Document 131 Filed 03/20/16 Page 1 of 6
Case No. 13-cv-04997 NC 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

moved for sanctions against Diamos and her attorneys to recover costs and attorneys’ fees 

resulting from failures to appear at the depositions of Diamos and her husband and the last 

minute cancelation of Specialized’s person most knowledgeable deposition. See Dkt. Nos. 

102, 103.

The Court postponed ruling on Specialized’s sanctions request against attorney 

Bolanos because he was suspended and could not practice law again in California until 

February 25, 2016. Dkt. No. 117 at 2. The Court stated that it did “not intend to resolve 

the sanctions motions against Mr. Bolanos without his participation.” Id. It ordered 

Bolanos to respond to the motions for sanctions by March 11, 2016. Id.

On February 17, 2016, Bolanos, represented by an attorney, filed a declaration in 

opposition to the motion for sanctions against him. Dkt. No. 120. The Court granted 

Specialized’s motion and sanctioned Bolanos $7,701.00. Dkt. No. 125. The Court then 

entered judgment on February 29, 2016. Dkt. No. 126. Bolanos now moves for 

reconsideration of the Court’s order granting Specialized’s motion for sanctions against 

him. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Bolanos moves for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. Rule 

60 provides that:

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its 

legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding 

for the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, 

could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial 

under Rule 59(b);

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), 

misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;

(4) the judgment is void;

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it 

is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or 

vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or

(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 

III. DISCUSSION

Bolanos makes several claims for reconsideration of the sanctions against him

Case 3:13-cv-04997-NC Document 131 Filed 03/20/16 Page 2 of 6
Case No. 13-cv-04997 NC 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

under Rule 60. Bolanos claims (1) that he and his client never consented to the jurisdiction 

of a magistrate judge, rendering the Court’s rulings void, (2) that Bolanos was not attorney 

of record when the misconduct occurred and therefore the Court lacked the power to 

sanction him, and (3) that the appropriate parties to sanction were his client Tina Diamos 

and his colleague, attorney Walter Dauterman, who is since deceased. However, because 

his arguments do not address the requirements for reconsideration under Rule 60(b), his 

motion is denied.

A. Jurisdiction Over Bolanos

First, Bolanos claims that his client Tina Diamos never consented to the jurisdiction 

of this Court. Therefore, according to Bolanos, “the first argument for reconsideration is a 

failure of jurisdiction.” Dkt. No. 128-1 at 1. However, Bolanos signed a filing dated 

January 21, 2014, stating, “All parties consent to having the magistrate judge conduct all 

further proceedings including trial and entry of judgment.” See Dkt. No. 17 at 6. His 

argument that plaintiff Diamos has not consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge 

is therefore without merit. 

Bolanos later states that “Mr. Bolanos never consented to the jurisdiction of a 

magistrate judge to adjudicate matters regarding him personally.” Dkt. No. 128 at 2. First, 

this argument fails for the same reason as his argument regarding his client—the consent 

stated at docket 17. As attorney of record appearing before the Court on behalf of his 

client, Tina Diamos, Bolanos’ professional conduct was subject to this Court’s jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) conferring the power to conduct “any or all proceedings in a 

jury or nonjury civil matter and order the entry of judgment in the case” after the written 

consent of the parties.

Moreover, Bolanos has been sanctioned under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, which states:

Any attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any 

court of the United States or any Territory thereof who so 

multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and 

vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally 

the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees reasonably 

incurred because of such conduct. (emphasis added).

The definition of “court of the United States” can be found at 28 U.S.C. § 451, 

Case 3:13-cv-04997-NC Document 131 Filed 03/20/16 Page 3 of 6
Case No. 13-cv-04997 NC 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

which states:

The term “court of the United States” includes the Supreme 

Court of the United States, courts of appeals, district courts 

constituted by chapter 5 of this title, including the Court of 

International Trade and any court created by Act of Congress 

the judges of which are entitled to hold office during good 

behavior. (emphasis added).

Magistrate courts are courts “created by an Act of Congress,” specifically the 

Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 631 et seq. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 266 

(1976) (stating that “Congress in 1968 enacted the Federal Magistrates Act” and outlining 

statutory history). If Bolanos’ filing consenting on his client’s behalf to magistrate 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) did not confer jurisdiction over Bolanos in his

capacity as attorney of record, then the plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 1927, read in 

conjunction with 28 U.S. Code § 451, provides a jurisdictional basis for the Court to 

sanction him personally. See Lee v. The Pep Boys-Manny Moe & Jack of California, No. 

12-cv-05064 JSC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170352 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2015) (magistrate 

court levying sanctions against attorney under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 in a consent case).

Second, Bolanos claims that he was “not attorney of record and did not participate 

in any way whatsoever with the December 16, 2015, telephone conference with the judge 

or with the failure to appear at the deposition ordered on December 17, 2015, yet the court 

has ordered a discovery sanction against Bolanos for events in which he did not 

participate.” Dkt. No. 128 at 2. However, Bolanos failed to file a motion to withdraw as 

attorney of record on the case. He filed a document entitled “Notice of Suspension” at 

docket 92 of the record, dated December 15, 2015, but did not otherwise move to withdraw 

as the attorney of record. Local Rule 11-5(a) states, “[c]ounsel may not withdraw from an 

action until relieved by order of Court after written notice has been given reasonably in 

advance to the client and to all other parties who have appeared in the case.” Bolanos’ 

filing stating his suspended status was not equivalent to requesting and being granted leave 

from the Court to officially withdraw as attorney of record. It was also untimely. See Dkt. 

No. 125. 

Therefore, the Court finds that its order sanctioning Bolanos was not void due to

Case 3:13-cv-04997-NC Document 131 Filed 03/20/16 Page 4 of 6
Case No. 13-cv-04997 NC 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

lack of jurisdiction over him. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4).

B. Grounds For Reconsideration On The Merits

Bolanos also does not bring evidence to support non-jurisdictional grounds for 

reconsideration. He does not argue that setting a deposition during his suspension was 

“excusable neglect” warranting reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(1). He argues that he did 

not err in when and how he notified defense counsel and the Court of his suspension. Dkt. 

No. 128-2 at 3. His arguments that the Court should sanction Dauterman and his client 

Diamos are a repetition of previous arguments. He does not present evidence of fraud or 

misconduct. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3).

Likewise, Bolanos fails to present “newly discovered evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b)(2). As explained in the Court’s order at docket 125, Bolanos continued a November

deposition to December 17, 2015. At the time he continued the deposition, Bolanos knew 

that he had been suspended by the State Bar of California effective November 27, 2015, 

but he did not disclose this information to defense counsel and this Court until December 

15, 2015. Dkt. No. 92. Bolanos then sent an email on the morning of December 17, 2015, 

(the morning of the rescheduled deposition and during his suspension), canceling the 

depositions of Mr. and Mrs. Diamos. Dkt. No. 102-1 at 3. 

Bolanos was sanctioned for his failure to notify defense counsel and this Court of 

his suspension in a timely manner. His descriptions of Dauterman’s poor mental health 

and his client’s failure to bring documents to a deposition in his motion for reconsideration 

of the sanctions against him do not constitute “newly discovered evidence” under Rule 

60(b)(2) because they are not newly discovered or relevant to why Bolanos was 

sanctioned. Dkt. No. 128-2 at 2.

Bolanos’ declaration concludes in a peculiar manner. “I am tired I suppose of the 

mentally ill being given a free pass to fail in their obligations to society. Vagrants litter 

our streets and urinate and defecate in our alleys with impunity because the liberal 

consciousness bemoans ‘they cannot help it because they are mentally ill.’ Well I’m sorry, 

but public urination is a crime. Just as failing to appear as ordered by a court is a 

Case 3:13-cv-04997-NC Document 131 Filed 03/20/16 Page 5 of 6
Case No. 13-cv-04997 NC 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

sanctionable violation of the federal rules. So my request is that this court sanction Mr. 

Dauterman for all the money expended and I will personally deliver the order to his grave 

and demand his compliance.” Dkt. No. 128-2 at 4. The Court will include this filing and 

declaration by Bolanos in its referral to the Standing Committee on Professional Conduct 

for the Northern District of California. See Civ. L. R. 11-6.

C. Additional Sanctions

Specialized opposes Bolanos’ motion for reconsideration. Dkt. Nos. 129, 130. In a

declaration attached to the response to Bolanos’ motion, counsel for Specialized requests 

an additional $1,525.00 sanction against Bolanos for attorneys’ fees incurred in opposing 

his motion for reconsideration. Dkt. No. 129-1 at 3 (Declaration of Ronald Arlas). 

However, the request for additional sanctions is not stated in the response papers, and 

Specialized has not filed a motion for additional sanctions or a motion to amend the 

judgment. Specialized’s request for an additional $1,525.00 is DENIED.

IV. CONCLUSION

Finding that Bolanos has failed to provide justification under Rule 60 for 

reconsideration of the sanctions motion against him, the Court DENIES his motion. This 

case is now closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 20, 2016 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:13-cv-04997-NC Document 131 Filed 03/20/16 Page 6 of 6