Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01157/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01157-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 12:1441 FHLB: Financial Inst Reform Receiving Enforcement Act 1989

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GABRIELA MAGDALENA MENDOZA 

ARAIZA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MACY'S CORPORATE SERVICES, 

INC. et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 3:18-cv-01157-LAB-RBM 

ORDER ISSUING MONETARY 

SANCTIONS 

19 Plaintiff GABRIELA MAGDALENA MENDOZA ARAIZA ("Plaintiff') 

20 commenced this action on November 15, 2017, in the Superior Court of the State of 

21 California, County of Imperial, seeking compensation for an injury she suffered when she 

22 fell on an escalator in the Macy's department store in El Centro, California. (Doc. 1.) She 

23 alleged general negligence, products liability, and premises liability causes of action. (Id.) 

24 Defendants MACY'S CORPORATE SERVICES, INC. and SCHINDLER ELEVATOR 

25 CORP jointly removed the action to federal court on June 4, 2018. (Id.) On November 29, 

26 2018, the Court ordered the parties to personally attend an Early Neutral Evaluation 

27 Conference ("ENE") and Case Management Conference ("CMC") in the chambers of the 

28 Honorable Ruth Bermudez Montenegro on February 6, 2019, and to submit ENE 

3:18-cv-01157-LAB-RBM 

Case 3:18-cv-01157-LAB-RBM Document 27 Filed 03/08/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
1 statements no later than January 23, 2019. (Doc. 17.) The Court mandated that any 

2 requests to excuse the personal appearance of a party be made in the form of a motion filed 

3 no later than ten calendar days prior to the ENE. (Id.) 

4 Plaintiffs counsel failed to submit an ENE statement before January 23, 2019, and 

5 instead submitted ENE statement on February 4, 2019. On the morning of the ENE, staff 

6 members from the office of Plaintiffs counsel contacted the Court, stated that they were 

7 unable to locate Plaintiff, and requested that the Court excuse Plaintiffs personal 

8 appearance. At the ENE, Plaintiff failed to appear, and Plaintiffs counsel Steven M. 

9 Yonan of Childers & Associates informed the Court that despite attempts to reach Plaintiff, 

10 his firm had lost contact with Plaintiff for an indeterminate period of time. Due to 

11 Plaintiffs absence, neither the ENE nor the CMC could proceed. 

12 On February 7, 2019, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause, which set a hearing 

13 for March 6, 2019, and ordered Plaintiff and her counsel to show why sanctions should not 

14 be imposed. (Doc. 22.) In the Order, the Court ordered: (1) Plaintiff to file a declaration 

15 informing the Court why she did not appear at the ENE; (2) Plaintiffs counsel to file a 

16 declaration informing the Court why he failed to submit an ENE statement before the 

1 7 designated deadline and why he failed to request excuse of Plaintiffs personal attendance 

18 at the ENE before the designated deadline. Attorney Ryan D. Childers, also of Childers & 

19 Associates, filed a response to the Order to Show Cause, explaining the existence of 

20 "scheduling conflicts experienced with regard to Plaintiffs presence and participation at 

21 mediation sessions." (Doc. 5, at 5.) The declaration did not address why Plaintiffs counsel 

22 failed to submit an ENE statement before the designated deadline. (Doc. 5.) Plaintiff failed 

23 to submit a declaration entirely. 

24 Any of these violations could be a basis for imposing monetary sanctions. See Fed. 

25 R. Civ. P. 16(f); Civ. L. R. 83.l(a). Plaintiff, although given an opportunity to do so, has 

26 provided no excuse for her failure to attend the ENE. Because of her failure to attend the 

27 ENE, Defense counsel and an insurance adjusted traveled to El Centro for a hearing that 

28 was immediately terminated, incurring unnecessary attorney's fees and costs. 

2 

3:18-cv-01157-LAB-RBM 

Case 3:18-cv-01157-LAB-RBM Document 27 Filed 03/08/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
1 Plaintiff and her counsel have failed to comply with the Court's Orders ofNovember 

2 29, 2018 (Doc. 17), and February 7, 2019 (Doc. 22). As such, Plaintiff and her counsel 

3 should be sanctioned. The Court finds that the imposition of a $100. 00 monetary sanction 

4 on Plaintiff and her counsel, jointly and severally, is both reasonable and just. See Fed. R. 

5 Civ. P 16(f)1; Civ L. R. 83.l(a). Accordingly, Plaintiff and her counsel are ORDERED to 

6 pay $100.00 to the Miscellaneous Fines, Penalties and Forfeitures, Not Otherwise 

7 Classified, fund of the United States Treasury on or before April 8, 2019. 

8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

9 DATE: March 7, 2019 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

~~o UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

1 The Court declines to order the payment of reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred as 

a result of Plaintiffs failure to appear because, given the current posture of the case, it would be unjust to 

require Defendants to incur any further attorney's fees and expenses in litigating this case, including the 

26 filing of declarations to substantiate an award of attorney's fees and expenses. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(2); 

see also Matter of Yagman, 796 F.2d 1165, 1184-85 (9th Cir.), opinion amended on denial of reh 'g sub 

27 nom. In re Yagman, 803 F.2d 1085 (9th Cir. 1986) ("When [a] sanctions award is based upon attorney's 

28 fees and related expenses, an essential part of determining the reasonableness of the award is inquiring 

into the reasonableness of the claimed fees."). 

3 

3:18-cv-01157-LAB-RBM 

Case 3:18-cv-01157-LAB-RBM Document 27 Filed 03/08/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3