Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02237/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02237-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

1

19cv2237-L-LL

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JORGE GUIJARRO, individually, and on 

behalf of all other similarly situated 

current and former employees of 

SHERATON OPERATING 

CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHERATON OPERATING 

CORPORATION, corporation; and DOES 

1 through 100, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19cv2237-L-LL

ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS AS 

A RESULT OF PLAINTIFF JORGE 

GUIJARRO’S FAILURE TO 

APPEAR AT THE EARLY 

NEUTRAL EVALUATION 

CONFERENCE; 

ORDER SETTING HEARING 

On January 8, 2020, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause as to why sanctions 

should not be imposed on Plaintiff for Plaintiff Jorge Guijarro’s failure to appear in-person 

at the Early Neutral Evaluation (“ENE”). ECF No. 9. After considering the filings 

submitted by the parties [ECF Nos. 11, 12], the Court concludes that Plaintiff should be 

sanctioned in the amount, and for the reasons, set forth below.

/ / / 

/ / /

/ / / 

Case 3:19-cv-02237-L-LL Document 13 Filed 01/23/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

19cv2237-L-LL

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

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

On November 26, 2019, the Court issued a Notice and Order for an Early Neutral 

Evaluation to be held on January 7, 2020. ECF No. 5. The ENE Notice required that all 

parties and the principal attorneys responsible for the litigation attend the ENE. 

Specifically, the ENE Notice stated:

Personal Appearance of Parties Required: All parties, 

adjusters for insured parties, and other representatives of a party 

having full and complete authority to enter into a binding 

settlement, and the principal attorneys responsible for the 

litigation, must be present in person and legally and factually 

prepared to discuss settlement of the case. Counsel appearing 

without their clients (whether or not counsel has been given 

settlement authority) will be cause for immediate imposition of 

sanctions and may also result in the immediate termination of the 

conference.

Id. at 2.

On January 7, 2020, the Court attempted to convene an ENE as scheduled.

ECF No. 8. Plaintiff, Mr. Guijarro, failed to appear. Id. Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Douglas 

Perlman, represented to the Court on January 7, 2020 that he had tried to reach his client 

to inform him to appear at the ENE, but was unsuccessful. For these reasons, the Court 

issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) that ordered Plaintiff to file a declaration 

regarding his failure to appear and why Plaintiff should not be sanctioned. ECF No. 9.

On January 14, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel submitted a declaration in response to the 

Court’s OSC. ECF No. 11. On January 16, 2020, Defendant’s counsel filed a response. 

ECF No. 12.

ANALYSIS

I. Mr. Guijarro’s Failure to Appear and Failure to Obey a Pretrial Order

“The authority of a federal court to order attendance of attorneys, [and] parties . . . 

at settlement conferences and to impose sanctions for disregard of the court’s orders is so 

well established as to be beyond doubt.” Chavarria v. Mgmt. & Training Corp., 

No. 16cv0617 H(RBB), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196983, at *12 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2016) 

Case 3:19-cv-02237-L-LL Document 13 Filed 01/23/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

19cv2237-L-LL

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

(citation omitted). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f) provides that the Court may 

sanction a party or its attorney if the party “fails to appear at a scheduling or other pretrial 

conference . . . or fails to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

16(f)(1)(A) and (C). Similarly, Civil Local Rule 16.1(c)(1)(c) provides that “[s]anctions 

may be appropriate for an unexcused failure to attend [an ENE conference].” CivLR

16.1(c)(1)(c).

Here, Plaintiff Mr. Guijarro failed to comply with two Court orders. First, he failed 

to appear at the ENE. ECF No 8. Second, Mr. Guijarro failed to file a declaration regarding 

his failure to appear at the ENE pursuant to the Court’s January 8, 2020 Order. ECF No. 9 

at 2. Instead, his lawyer, Mr. Perlman, filed a declaration on his behalf, which sets forth his 

unsuccessful attempts to contact Mr. Guijarro prior to the ENE. ECF No. 11. Mr. Perlman’s 

declaration further states that after the ENE, a member of his staff was successful in 

contacting Mr. Guijarro, and that Mr. Guijarro “has expressed interest in this litigation.” 

Id. ¶ 5. However, Mr. Perlman offers no explanation as to why Mr. Guijarro’s declaration 

is absent. See id.

Plaintiff’s counsel’s explanation is not enough to persuade the Court that sanctions 

are not justified. Even taking into account Mr. Perlman’s explanation that this failure was 

unintentional, the Court “need not find bad faith in order to award sanctions pursuant to 

Rule 16(f).” Chavarria, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196983, at *14 (citations omitted). “Rather, 

the Court may impose sanctions under Rule 16(f) for ‘unintentional or negligent 

noncompliance with the court’s pretrial orders.” Id.; see also Lucas Auto. Eng’g, Inc. v.

Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 275 F.3d 762, 769 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding the district court 

did not err in imposing sanctions for unintentional failure to attend mediation session).

The Court is mindful of both (1) the costs that Defendant incurred in having its 

counsel and party representatives appear in-person at the ENE and (2) Plaintiff’s failure to 

appear at the ENE, thereby wasting time the Court could have used to address other matters 

on its docket. 

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-02237-L-LL Document 13 Filed 01/23/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

19cv2237-L-LL

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

II. Appropriate Sanction

Having concluded that sanctions are warranted, the Court next turns to the 

appropriate amount. Defendant’s counsel, Ms. Barbara J. Miller, submitted a declaration 

asserting she incurred legal fees and costs in the amount of $739.13 in connection with 

attending the ENE. See ECF No. 12. The Court finds it appropriate to ORDER Plaintiff to 

reimburse Defendant in the sum of $739.13. Payment is to be made on or before

February 24, 2020.

III. Order to Show Cause Hearing

The Court additionally ORDERS Mr. Guijarro and his counsel to appear at an Order 

to Show Cause hearing on February 4, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 2B located at 221 

West Broadway, San Diego, California. Defendant is not required to appear at the Order to 

Show Cause hearing but may appear if it so chooses.

The Court further ORDERS Mr. Guijarro to file on the docket a declaration 

regarding his failure to appear at the ENE no more than five pages in length on or before

January 30, 2020. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-02237-L-LL Document 13 Filed 01/23/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4