Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01986/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01986-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 120
Nature of Suit: Marine Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1333ad Admiralty

---

1 

18-CV-1986-WQH(WVG) 

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 

TAYLOR BOWKER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

M/V “TATU” et al., 

Defendants. 

 Case No.: 18-CV-1986-WQH(WVG) 

ORDER FOLLOWING SHOW 

CAUSE HEARING 

 The Court has reviewed the transcript of the May 29, 2019 OSC hearing, Defendant 

Golovina’s two declarations and attached exhibits, her attorney’s declaration, Plaintiff’s 

memorandum in support of sanctions, Fransea’s position on sanctions, and Defendant’s 

memorandum in opposition to sanctions. (Doc. Nos. 67, 68, 69, 75, 81, 82, 83.) The Court 

has concluded that no sanctions will be imposed at this time. 

 The Court has determined that Golovina—despite repeated orders from the Court to 

be present at the April 1, 2019 ENE—did not act in bad faith by failing to attend. Nor was 

Plaintiff prejudiced in any discernible way due to Golovina’s absence. The Court is 

convinced that Golovina made arrangements to travel to London, England before February 

22, 2019—the date that the ENE was scheduled—to attend a very important business 

meeting. Although the Court believes Golovina could have done more to reschedule the 

Case 3:18-cv-01986-WQH-WVG Document 84 Filed 09/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2 

18-CV-1986-WQH(WVG) 

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

London meeting so she could be present at the ENE, the Court cannot conclude that her 

absence was motivated by bad faith or intent to impede the settlement process. The fact 

that Plaintiffs-in-intervention were able to resolve the case with Golovina despite her 

absence is evidence that her absence was not completely detrimental. Moreover, Golovina 

was essentially “between a rock and a hard place.” Either she attended the London business 

meeting and missed the ENE, potentially subjecting herself to sanctions, or she attended 

the ENE and missed the London meeting, potentially doing irreparable harm to her 

business interests. While the Court wishes Golovina chose to attend the ENE, the Court 

forgives—but does not condone—her decision. 

 Golovina is hereby on notice that she is expected to be personally present at future 

proceedings when the Court so orders and that she will make necessary arrangements to do 

so. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 4, 2019 

Case 3:18-cv-01986-WQH-WVG Document 84 Filed 09/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2