Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06417/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06417-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GAIL SUTTON and DANIELLE SUTTON,

Plaintiffs,

 v

WALTER HOLZ, JR and VICTORIAN

CARE HOMES OF THE MONTEREY

PENINSULA, INC, 

Defendants.

 /

No C 06-6417 VRW

ORDER

This action involves claims relating to the death of

Letitia Breng Rose, mother of plaintiff Gail Sutton and grandmother

of plaintiff Danielle Sutton. This order addresses issues

pertaining to the complaint and to discovery. The case was

scheduled for a case management conference on December 6, 2007. 

Plaintiffs informed the court through its clerk that they would not

appear at the conference. In light of that development, the court

VACATES the case management conference and addresses the

outstanding issues herein. 

I

Because no lawsuit can proceed without a complaint to

define the issues requiring discovery, the uncertainty about the

Case 3:06-cv-06417-VRW Document 142 Filed 12/05/07 Page 1 of 8
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

status of plaintiffs’ pleading must be resolved first. By order

dated October 15, 2007, the court granted the motion by defendants

Walter Holz, Jr and Victorian Care Homes Inc (Victorian) to strike

plaintiffs’ first amended complaint (FAC) because plaintiffs

obtained neither leave of court nor written consent of the

defendants as required by FRCP 15(a) before filing it. Construing

plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion to strike as a motion to

amend, the court then ruled as follows:

Given the obvious flaws in the FAC and that the

attorneys who drafted it on behalf of plaintiffs are

no longer involved in the case, the court concludes

that it would be contrary to the interests of

efficiency and fairness in the administration of

justice to allow the FAC to be filed.

Order at 8. The court gave plaintiffs leave to file, within thirty

days of October 15, an amended pleading “that comports with the

April 18, 2007 order” and reminded plaintiffs that “[a]ny amendment

beyond the scope of the amendments permitted by that order may only

be made by motion or by stipulation in accordance with FRCP 15(a).” 

Id. 

Instead of filing an amended pleading, however,

plaintiffs submitted to the court a letter (Doc # 135, filed

November 9, 2007) stating in pertinent part:

With respect, we do not think that we can follow

the Court’s Order without making blunders which

would place the complaint in jeopardy. With an

abundance of caution, we respectfully inform the

court that we do not see how we can amend the

pleadings (complaint) within the restrictions of

the Court Order. We do not see a way for us to

amend the pleadings without making changes which

will alter the meaning or without adding certain

statements.

\\

Case 3:06-cv-06417-VRW Document 142 Filed 12/05/07 Page 2 of 8
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

3

Because the court struck the improperly-filed FAC and

denied plaintiffs leave to file it, the only complaint on file with

the court is plaintiffs’ original complaint, filed October 13, 2006

(Doc # 1), as reduced by the court’s order dated April 18, 2007

(Doc # 72) and by plaintiffs’ election not to amend. 

Plaintiffs’ original complaint included claims for

wrongful death (count I), elder abuse (count II), wrongful and

willful dissipation of the estate (count III) and wrongful

dissipation of the estate and failure to notice (count IV). By its

April 18, 2007 order, the court: dismissed defendant Leslie Foote

without prejudice for improper service; dismissed all claims

against defendants Roberta Sokotowski and Richard Bishop with

prejudice; dismissed all claims against defendant Ann Sydes with

prejudice; dismissed plaintiff John Sutton from the action with

prejudice; and allowed Danielle Sutton to remain a plaintiff in the

suit only as to the claim for elder abuse. Doc #72.

In conclusion, the court’s order stated:

The only causes of action that remain in this

lawsuit are those for wrongful death (claim #1)

and elder abuse (claim #2) and the only remaining

defendants are Holz and Victorian.

John Sutton is no longer a plaintiff in this

action as he has been dismissed from the remaining

claims for wrongful death and elder abuse. 

Danielle Sutton remains only as a plaintiff to the

second cause of action for elder abuse.

Id. On April 27, 2007, Holz filed an amended answer reflecting the

rulings in the court’s April 18 order. Doc # 73. Victorian has not

yet answered, presumably because the complaint continues to be in

limbo. 

\\

Case 3:06-cv-06417-VRW Document 142 Filed 12/05/07 Page 3 of 8
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

4

The court interprets plaintiffs’ November 9 letter (Doc #

135) as an election to stand on their complaint. Because they

articulate no intention to amend nor any plan for doing so, the

letter is not susceptible of any other interpretation. Electing not

to amend and instead standing on the existing complaint is an

available course of action even for a plaintiff whose entire

complaint has been dismissed. See, e g, WMX Technologies, Inc v

Miller, 104 F3d 1133 (9th Cir 1997). Here, however, the entire

complaint was not dismissed. The claims against defendant Foote

were dismissed with leave to amend. Those claims are now dismissed

with prejudice. The claims for wrongful death and elder abuse

against Holz and Victorian were not dismissed. Those are the claims

with which the parties must now move forward. 

Victorian asked that plaintiffs amend their complaint

prior to service, presumably in order to have a pleading to work

with that was not cluttered with dismissed parties and claims. 

While this would have been desirable, it would be inefficient to

allow further delay for the purposes of attempting to obtain a

cleaned-up pleading given that the parties have nearly completed

discovery. Accordingly, the parties will proceed on the original

complaint as modified by the court’s April 18 order and today’s

order. 

II 

The supplemental case management statement submitted by

Holz and Victorian raises several issues that have arisen during

discovery including: plaintiffs’ unwillingness to travel to San

Francisco for their depositions, which are noticed for December 19

Case 3:06-cv-06417-VRW Document 142 Filed 12/05/07 Page 4 of 8
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

5

and 20th 2007; defendants’ request that non-parties be excluded from

the depositions; and plaintiffs’ refusal to honor a non-disclosure

agreement executed by their former counsel without which they may

not view certain documents produced by public agencies pursuant to

court orders in this case. 

Regarding the place for the depositions, “[a]s a normal

rule plaintiff will be required to make himself or herself available

for examination in the district in which suit was brought. Since

plaintiff has selected the forum, he or she will not be heard to

complain about having to appear there for a deposition.” Alan

Wright, Arthur R Miller, & Mary Kay Kane, 8A Federal Practice &

Procedure: Civil 2d § 2112 (West 2007). This rule is subject to

exceptions based on individual circumstances, such as financial or

other hardship. The court notes that defendants have offered to

defray some portion of plaintiffs’ travel expenses. Plaintiffs, in

to a letter submitted to the court with defendants’ supplemental

case management statement, gave no reason why they should not be

compelled to appear at a deposition in San Francisco; rather, they

merely state that they “are unable to attend those depositions in

CA” and ask that they be held in New York. In a separate letter to

the court dated December 3, 2007 (Doc # 141), they state that they

“are unable to attend depositions on the 19th and 20th of December

which is also Christmas season and the height of holiday travel.” 

They also state that they “have limited finances” and that it is “a

financial hardship for us to fly out to California which is over

3,000 miles away.” They add that it would be an “emotional and

physical hardship [and] a tremendous burden on our family.” 

\\

Case 3:06-cv-06417-VRW Document 142 Filed 12/05/07 Page 5 of 8
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

6

The court is persuaded that the balance of equities tips

sharply in defendants’ favor on this issue. The court does not

consider the forum-selection argument quoted above particularly

compelling here given the likelihood that the case would have been

transferred to this district if filed elsewhere. Plaintiffs have,

however, chosen to pursue litigation in northern California largely

without legal representation. While the court has granted

plaintiffs’ requests to appear by telephone thus far, plaintiffs are

advised that they cannot reasonably expect to avoid traveling to the

forum for key events. Holding the depositions in New York will

greatly increase the total cost, all of which must be borne by

defendants. If the depositions take place in San Francisco,

defendants will pay for some portion of plaintiffs’ travel expenses

and their attorneys’ time devoted to local travel and the

depositions themselves. If the depositions are held in New York,

however, defendants’ cost will be increased by their attorneys’ time

spent on coast-to-coast travel. The court, moreover, finds

plaintiffs’ excuses vague, overly general and unconvincing. 

In summary, given that the normal practice is for

plaintiffs to appear for their depositions in the forum district,

plaintiffs have not shown good cause for refusing to attend their

depositions as noticed and the much greater cost of the depositions

if taken in New York, the court now orders that plaintiffs shall

appear for their depositions at the time and place noticed by

defendants. Failure to comply with this order may result in

dismissal of this action. 

Defendants’ motion for an order excluding non-parties from

the depositions is DENIED without prejudice. Should defendants, in

Case 3:06-cv-06417-VRW Document 142 Filed 12/05/07 Page 6 of 8
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

7

the course of conducting the depositions, encounter problems

warranting judicial intervention, they are directed to contact the

court immediately. 

Regarding plaintiffs’ stated unwillingness to honor nondisclosure agreements signed by their former counsel, the court’s

protective orders dated August 15, 2007 (Docs # 111, 112) govern the

disclosure and use of confidential documents in the custody of the

Monterey County Public Guardian and Ombudsman. Under the terms of

those orders, parties may only gain access to the documents if they

are “qualified persons” as defined in the orders. The orders

moreover provide that “[p]rior to receiving any confidential

material, each qualified person shall be provided with a copy of

this order and shall execute a non-disclosure agreement.” See, e g,

Doc # 111 ¶ 5. Therefore, plaintiffs’ counsel’s execution of the

non-disclosure agreement has no bearing on their own obligation to

do so if they wish to be granted access to the documents the

agencies have marked “confidential.” Stated another way, if

plaintiffs do not execute the non-disclosure agreement, the

protective orders do not authorize them to have access to the

documents. 

III

The court hereby orders as follows: 

1. The claims against defendant Foote are DISMISSED with

prejudice. 

2. The parties will proceed on the original complaint

(Doc # 1) as modified by the court’s April 18 order (Doc

#72) and today’s order. 

Case 3:06-cv-06417-VRW Document 142 Filed 12/05/07 Page 7 of 8
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

8

3. Plaintiffs Gail and Danielle Sutton shall appear for

their depositions at the time and place noticed by

defendants. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of

this action. 

4. Defendants’ motion for an order excluding non-parties

from the depositions is DENIED without prejudice. 

5. The discovery schedule shall remain as per the

stipulation and order dated September 10, 2007 (Doc #

116). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:06-cv-06417-VRW Document 142 Filed 12/05/07 Page 8 of 8