Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03854/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03854-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:15 Antitrust Litigation

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GOLDEN GATE PHARMACY SERVICES,

INC., d/b/a GOLDEN GATE PHARMACY, et

al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

PFIZER, INC., and WYETH,

Defendants /

No. C 09-3854 MMC (JL)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS; VACATING

APRIL 23, 2010 HEARING

Before the Court is defendants’ Motion for Sanctions, filed February 22, 2010. 

Plaintiffs have filed opposition, to which defendants have replied. Having read and 

considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court deems

the matter suitable for decision on the parties’ respective submissions, VACATES the

hearing scheduled for April 23, 2010, and rules as follows:

1. To the extent the motion seeks an award of sanctions pursuant to the Court’s

inherent power and/or pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927, the motion is hereby DENIED, for the

reason that defendants have not demonstrated plaintiffs and/or their counsel acted in bad

faith in connection with plaintiffs’ filing of the challenged documents. See Zambrano v. City

of Tustin, 885 F.2d 1473, 1478 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding order awarding sanctions under

court’s inherent power must be supported by finding of “bad faith”); see also In re Keegan

Case 3:09-cv-03854-MMC Document 154 Filed 04/16/10 Page 1 of 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

1

Defendants do not contend plaintiffs’ filing of any document other than the SAC

constituted a violation of Rule 11.

2

Management Co. Sec. Litig., 78 F.3d 431, 436 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding order awarding

sanctions under § 1927 requires finding of “bad faith”).

2. To the extent the motion seeks an award of sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the motion is hereby DENIED. Although the Court, by

separate order filed concurrently herewith, has dismissed the Second Amended Complaint

(“SAC”) for failure to state a claim, defendants have not demonstrated the SAC1 was

“clearly frivolous, legally unreasonable or without legal foundation, or brought for an

improper purpose.” See Operating Engineers Pension Trust v. A-C Co., 859 F.2d 1336,

1344 (9th Cir. 1988) (noting, “we reserve [Rule 11] sanctions for the rare and exceptional

case where the action is clearly frivolous, legally unreasonable or without legal foundation,

or brought for an improper purpose”; describing Rule 11 sanctions as “an extraordinary

remedy, one to be exercised with extreme caution”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 16, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-03854-MMC Document 154 Filed 04/16/10 Page 2 of 2