Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-01971/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-01971-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Stockholders Suits

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HENRY MATOZA,

Plaintiff,

v.

THOR INDUSTRIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-01971-MMC 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Re: Dkt. No. 75

Before the Court is plaintiff Henry Matoza’s (“Matoza”) motion, filed August 20, 

2017, pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, by which Matoza asks 

the Court to impose sanctions on defendants’ counsel Phil John Montoya, Jr. (“Montoya”)

and his law firm, Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP.

1

 Counsel have filed 

opposition. Matoza has not filed a reply.

Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the 

motion, the Court deems the matter appropriate for determination thereon, VACATES the 

hearing scheduled for September 29, 2017, and, for the reasons set forth below, finds 

Matoza has not shown the conduct on which he relies is sanctionable. 

Matoza contends a declaration and brief submitted by Montoya in support of 

APCO’s and WSSL’s motions to compel arbitration were filed in violation of Rule 11(b)(3), 

which requires an attorney filing a paper with the Court “certif[y] that to the best of [his] 

 

1 Montoya and his firm represent four of the six remaining defendants in the 

above-titled action, namely, Automobile Protection Corporation (“APCO”), Warranty 

Support Services, LLC (“WSSL”), APCO Holdings, LLC, and Ontario Teachers’ Pension 

Plan.

Case 3:17-cv-01971-MMC Document 87 Filed 09/14/17 Page 1 of 2
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

knowledge, information, and belief, formed after a reasonable inquiry under the 

circumstances” that the “factual contentions have evidentiary support” and that the “legal 

contentions are warranted by existing law.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3). Matoza, 

however, has failed to show the statements in the declaration he challenges were made 

without evidentiary support, nor has Matoza shown the case he contends “is fatal to 

APCO and WSSL’s [motions to compel]” and, as such, should have been cited in 

Montoya’s brief (see Mot. at 8:14-15 (citing McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 2 Cal. 5th 945

(2017)), has any bearing on a case where, as here, the arbitration agreement contains no 

clause purporting to “preclude [Matoza] from seeking public injunctive relief in any forum.” 

See McGill, 2 Cal. 5th at 956 (emphasis omitted).

Accordingly, Matoza’s motion for sanctions is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2017

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-01971-MMC Document 87 Filed 09/14/17 Page 2 of 2