Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02561/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02561-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12181 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate Sanctions Order (Doc. 172) and 

Plaintiffs’ Response and Objections to Defendant’s Declaration of Attorneys’ Fees and 

Costs (Doc. 187).

On January 28, 2020—one week before the start of trial in this case—Defendant 

motioned the Court for sanctions against Plaintiffs and their counsel due to their behavior 

throughout this litigation. (Doc. 136) Among other things, Defendant stated that Plaintiffs 

and their counsel had repeatedly failed to abide by the Court’s order to: 1) exchange 

outlines for their opening statements so that the parties could ensure that neither side would 

run afoul of the Court’s motion in limine rulings; 2) stipulate to exhibits and deposition 

testimony for use at trial; and 3) serve subpoenas for Plaintiffs’ potential witnesses to be 

called at trial. (Doc. 136 at 7) More egregiously, Defendant asserted that Plaintiffs and their 

counsel had falsely represented the history of the parties’ settlement negotiations to the 

media—which resulted in a story about the case being published in the local newspaper. 

(Doc. 136 at 7-9) On January 31, 2020, the Court held a hearing and found that sanctions

Mitchell Siegel, et al.,

 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

Dignity Health,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-14-02561-PHX-SPL

ORDER

Case 2:14-cv-02561-SPL Document 188 Filed 02/19/20 Page 1 of 3
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

were appropriate as to Plaintiffs’ counsel Elizabeth Tate. (Doc. 145) The Court then 

Ordered Defendant to submit a declaration of costs and attorneys’ fees associated with the

filing of the motion for sanctions. (Doc. 145) On February 3, 2020, Defendant submitted 

the declaration. (Doc. 146) On February 13, 2020, during trial, Ms. Tate filed the Motion

to Vacate Sanctions Order. (Doc. 172) The parties presented oral arguments on the Motion 

the next day. (Doc. 175) 

Ms. Tate argued that there was no factual or legal basis for the Court to impose the 

sanctions, and that the Court should vacate the sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure (“Rule”) 54(b). (Doc. 172 at 3-8) Specifically, Ms. Tate argued that, although 

the Court has the inherent power to impose sanctions, the Court was required to make an 

explicit finding of bad faith prior to sanctioning her. (Doc. 172 at 3-8)

In response, Defendant presented oral argument that the Motion was effectively a 

motion for reconsideration of the Court’s prior order imposing sanctions, and Ms. Tate 

failed to meet the legal standard for a motion for reconsideration. Additionally, Defendant 

argued that Ms. Tate was repeatedly warned throughout the case that she had a 

responsibility to learn the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the District of Arizona’s Local 

Rules, and the procedural requirements outlined in this Court’s Orders. Defendant asserted 

that the repeated violation of those rules and Orders amounted to a deliberate decision by 

Ms. Tate to fail to meet the standards necessary to appear in federal court. Furthermore, 

Defendant argued that all of Ms. Tate’s conduct throughout the case should be considered 

as tantamount to bad faith, and therefore, the Court had sufficient cause to order sanctions 

against her. After the trial, Ms. Tate filed the Plaintiffs’ Response and Objections to 

Defendant’s Declaration of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. (Doc. 187)

Here, the Defendant requested sanctions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927, not the 

Court’s inherent sanctioning power, so the legal standard that Ms. Tate relies on is 

improper. (Docs. 136 at 1; 172) The statute states that an attorney who causes the 

proceedings in a case to be multiplied “unreasonably and vexatiously” may be required to 

pay the excessive costs incurred because of such conduct. 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The Court 

Case 2:14-cv-02561-SPL Document 188 Filed 02/19/20 Page 2 of 3
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

finds that it was within its discretion to sanction Ms. Tate under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 due to 

the behavior alleged in Defendant’s motion and in the arguments made before the Court. 

Therefore, the Court will not vacate the ruling. See Pac. Harbor Capital, Inc. v. Carnival 

Air Lines, Inc., 210 F.3d 1112, 1118 (9th Cir. 2000) (explaining that a district court is not 

required to make an explicit finding of bad faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 when the record 

supports a finding that an attorney’s conduct amounted to “knowing or reckless” conduct); 

see also Baldwin Hardware Corp. v. FrankSu Enterprise Corp., 78 F.3d 550, 562 (9th Cir. 

1996) (stating that although the court did not use the words “bad faith” in imposing 

sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, the record supported a finding that the court deemed the 

attorney’s actions to be at least reckless).

As it relates to the declaration submitted by Defendant’s counsel (Doc. 146) and 

Ms. Tate’s objection (Doc.187), the Court has reviewed the costs and attorneys’ fees

submitted by Defendant. The Court finds that a reduced award of $2,166 for travel costs 

and $6,648.75 for attorneys’ fees is reasonable. See Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 

F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975) (listing factors to consider in an award of attorneys’ fees), 

abrogated on other grounds by City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557 (1992).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate Sanctions Order (Doc. 172) is 

denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Response and Objections to 

Defendant’s Declaration of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (Doc. 187) is sustained in part. 

Plaintiffs’ counsel Elizabeth Tate is sanctioned in the amount of $8,814.75, representing 

the reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees incurred by Defendant when filing its Motion for 

Sanctions (Doc. 136).

Dated this 19th day of February, 2020.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

Case 2:14-cv-02561-SPL Document 188 Filed 02/19/20 Page 3 of 3