Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05393/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05393-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 33:1365 Environmental Matters

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

RUSSIAN RIVERKEEPER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PACIFIC STATES INDUSTRIES INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-5393 MHP

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Re: Plaintiff’s Motion to Show Cause and

Defendants’ Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions

On September 3, 2008, this court approved a consent decree negotiated between plaintiff

Russian Riverkeeper and defendants. Docket No. 33. This decree allows plaintiff to conduct yearly

site visits of the defendants’ sawmill.

In its motion to show cause, plaintiff contended that paragraph 17 of the decree allows the

presence of plaintiff’s counsel during the site visit. Docket No. 36. During the March 15, 2010

hearing on this motion, the court held the following: 1) Riverkeeper’s water quality engineer is the

sole person who may conduct the site visit; 2) no attorneys fees are warranted; 3) plaintiff to

reimburse defendants $2,346.25—the expert fees incurred by defendants for the January 2010 site

visit; and 4) plaintiff has not forfeited its right to the annual site visit.

Defendants have now filed a Rule 11 motion, based on identical facts, seeking attorneys’ fees

and forfeiture of the site visit. They claim further remedies are warranted because plaintiff’s motion

to show cause was intended to “harass and increase the costs of litigation . . . .” Docket No. 46 at

9:11-12. Defendants’ filing of the request for Rule 11 sanctions, even though identical arguments

and remedies have already been rejected, undercuts their argument. The motion itself unnecessarily

Case 3:07-cv-05393-MHP Document 50 Filed 04/01/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

harasses plaintiff and increases the costs of litigation. See id. at 9:1-3 (expending almost $4,000 to

file the motion for sanctions). The motion for Rule 11 sanctions is denied in its entirety. All parties

are warned against filing further unnecessary or frivolous motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 31, 2010 

MARILYN HALL PATEL

United States District Court Judge

Northern District of California

Case 3:07-cv-05393-MHP Document 50 Filed 04/01/10 Page 2 of 2