Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02874/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02874-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 450
Nature of Suit: Interstate Commerce
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 JOSE DIVISION

JEFFREY A. PRUSSIN; JUDY M. 

PRUSSIN,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BEKINS VAN LINES, LLC; BEKINS VAN 

LINES, INC.; TRIPLE CROWN 

MAFFUCCI STORAGE CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:13-cv-02874-HRL 

ORDER DIRECTING BEKINS LLC TO 

SHOW CAUSE WHY TERMINATING 

SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE 

IMPOSED

Re: Dkt. No. 63

Plaintiffs filed this suit, asserting claims for negligence and for violation of the Carmack 

Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 14706(c)(1)(A) for damage to their personal property allegedly 

sustained during a cross-country move. Bekins LLC is now the sole remaining defendant in this 

case.

1

Bekins LLC initially was represented by counsel and answered the complaint; but, it 

otherwise did not participate in this litigation. According to plaintiffs, Bekins LLC’s apparent 

decision to abandon its defense of this matter required them to spend additional time and resources 

litigating this case. For example, early in the case, plaintiffs advised that all parties agreed to 

 

1

Early on, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed defendant Bekins Van Lines, Inc. And, earlier this 

year, plaintiffs settled their claims against defendant Triple Crown Maffucci Storage Corporation 

(TCM). TCM voluntarily dismissed its cross-claims against Bekins LLC without prejudice.

Case 5:13-cv-02874-HRL Document 67 Filed 08/05/15 Page 1 of 5
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

arbitrate this matter. So, the initial case management conference was vacated and the case was 

administratively closed for several months while the parties were to arbitrate plaintiffs’ claims. 

But, the planned arbitration with the originally chosen provider fell through. And, when plaintiffs 

asked defendants whether they would be willing to proceed with a different provider, Bekins LLC 

did not respond; and, TCM said that it did not want to resolve the matter in a different forum than 

Bekins LLC. Thus, at plaintiffs’ request, the action was re-opened in March 2014, and Bekins 

LLC remained largely absent from the proceedings.

It wasn’t until earlier this year that this court was told that Bekins LLC reportedly was 

dissolved. And, indeed, in a subsequent motion to withdraw as counsel of record, Bekins LLC’s 

attorney confirmed as much. The motion to withdraw was granted on condition that papers could 

continue to be served on counsel for forwarding purposes unless and until Bekins LLC appeared 

through other counsel. In that order, Bekins LLC was advised that it could only appear in this 

matter through an attorney. Defendant was further advised that it retained all of the obligations of 

a litigant and that its failure to appoint an attorney could lead to an order striking its pleadings or 

to the entry of its default. (Dkt. 55).

Shortly after, plaintiffs (with leave of court) filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 motion to compel 

Bekins LLC to respond to discovery. On May 19, 2015, that motion was granted. Bekins LLC 

was ordered to produce responsive discovery (with no objections, other than for attorney-client 

privileged matters) and to pay $1,200 in plaintiffs’ fees and costs incurred in bringing the motion.

Plaintiffs now advise that Bekins LLC has not complied with that order. Pursuant to Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 37(c), they seek terminating sanctions as to Bekins LLC.

If a party fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, the court may impose 

sanctions, including striking pleadings in whole or in part. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(iii). 

“Where the sanction results in default, the sanctioned party’s violations must be due to the 

willfulness, bad faith, or fault of the party.” Hester v. Vision Airlines, Inc., 687 F.3d 1162, 1169 

(9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). In determining whether such sanctions are appropriate, courts 

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 [opposing party]; (4) the 

Case 5:13-cv-02874-HRL Document 67 Filed 08/05/15 Page 2 of 5
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

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

sanctions.” Computer Task Group, Inc. v. Brotby, 364 F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir. 2004) (citations 

omitted). “Where a court order is violated, the first and second factors will favor sanctions and the 

fourth will cut against them.” Id. Thus, whether terminating sanctions are appropriate depends on 

the third and fifth factors. Id.

The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the court’s need to manage 

its docket have been adversely affected by Bekins LLC’s failure to participate in these 

proceedings. For the reasons discussed above, it appears that at some point early in this case, 

Bekins LLC made a decision to willfully abandon its defense of this matter, including 

participation in discovery. Yet, it wasn’t until several months ago that this court was apprised of 

defendant’s dissolution (the details of which remain murky).

The Ninth Circuit has observed that a party suffers prejudice if the opposing party’s 

actions impair its ability to go to trial or threaten to interfere with the rightful decision of the case. 

Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 948 (9th Cir. 1993). Here, Bekins LLC’s failure to 

respond to discovery or to otherwise participate in these proceedings has hampered plaintiffs’ 

ability to resolve this matter. And, while it is preferable to resolve matters on the merits, Bekins 

LLC’s lack of participation has made that impossible.

As for the availability of less drastic sanctions, this court previously imposed monetary 

sanctions for Bekins LLC’s failure to respond to plaintiffs’ discovery requests. The order 

imposing those sanctions, however, went unheeded. And, Bekins LLC is expressly advised that,

as a consequence, it is now in peril of having its answer stricken and its default entered.

Accordingly, no later than August 21, 2015, Bekins LLC shall file a written response to 

this order, showing cause why its answer should not be stricken and its default entered for failure 

to participate in discovery and this litigation. Unless otherwise ordered, the matter will then be 

deemed submitted without further hearing or briefing.

Gregg Garfinkel, who remains on this docket solely for forwarding purposes, shall

Case 5:13-cv-02874-HRL Document 67 Filed 08/05/15 Page 3 of 5
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

promptly file a proof of service on Bekins LLC as to this order.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 5, 2015

________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:13-cv-02874-HRL Document 67 Filed 08/05/15 Page 4 of 5
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

5:13-cv-02874-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Allen Gabriel Haroutounian aharoutounian@nemecek-cole.com

Frank Xavier Dipolito fdipolito@swaindipolito.com, swaindipolito@lawyer.com

Gavin E Kogan gavin@lg-attorneys.com

Gregg S. Garfinkel ggarfinkel@nemecek-cole.com

Ross Ian Landau rlandau@swaindipolito.com

Case 5:13-cv-02874-HRL Document 67 Filed 08/05/15 Page 5 of 5