Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01630/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01630-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIFFANY FENTERS, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

YOSEMITE CHEVRON, et al., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-05-1630 OWW/DLB

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S

EX PARTE APPLICATION (Doc.

67), DENYING DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT

TO RULE 41(b) AND REQUEST

FOR SANCTIONS (Doc. 63), AND

VACATING ORAL ARGUMENT SET

FOR SEPTEMBER 18, 2006 

By Order filed on July 14, 2006, plaintiffs were ordered to

file a First Amended Complaint within 20 days of service of the

Order. The Order was served electronically on July 14, 2006.

On August 15, 2006 at 4:18 p.m., defendants Yosemite

Chevron, Abbco Investments, LLC, Robert Abbate, James Abbate and

John Abbate (hereinafter the Abbate Defendants) filed a motion to

dismiss the action pursuant to Rule 41(b), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, and for monetary sanctions because of plaintiffs

failure to file a First Amended Complaint within the time set

Case 1:05-cv-01630-OWW -DLB Document 74 Filed 08/29/06 Page 1 of 10
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

Although Tiffany’s parents were named as plaintiffs in the 1

Complaint, they are not named as plaintiffs in the First Amended

Complaint.

2

forth in the Order. 

On August 15, 2006 at 4:38 p.m., plaintiff Tiffany Fenters

filed a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 66). On August 15, 2006 1

at 5:46 p.m., plaintiffs filed an “Ex Parte Request That Court

Consider Belatedly Filed First Amended Complaint Due to

Inadvertent Clerical Error”.

Pursuant to Rule 78-230(h), Local Rules of Practice, the

present record establishes that further hearing on plaintiff’s ex

parte request and the Abbate Defendants’ motion is unnecessary. 

In support of the ex parte request, counsel for plaintiffs,

Kevin Little, avers:

1. On August 3, 2006, at approximately 3:18

p.m., the undersigned [Mr. Little] completed

drafting the First Amended Complaint that was

due to be filed that day, as per the Court’s

July 17, 2006 Order ... At approximately 3:19

p.m., the undersigned counsel converted said

document from WordPerfect to Adobe format,

which is the format required for purposes of

electronic filing via the Court’s CM/ECF

system. At approximately 3:20 p.m., the

undersigned counsel e-mailed the First

Amended Complaint in Adobe format from his

primary e-mail address (fwllaw@aol.com) to

his secretary’s primary e-mail address

(purplemz@aol.com), entitling the

accompanying message, ‘Fenters First Amended

Complaint for Filing.’ Copies of the

undersigned counsel’s file directory listings

indicating the times when the subject

documents were created and the subject e-mail

message are [sic] attached hereto as Exhibits

1 and 2, respectively.

2. There has been no set, uniform protocol

Case 1:05-cv-01630-OWW -DLB Document 74 Filed 08/29/06 Page 2 of 10
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

3

for how documents get filed electronically in

my office. Depending on who is available

and/or less busy at a particular time, either

myself of [sic] my secretary may

electronically file documents with the Court. 

Unfortunately, my secretary in this instance

presumed that I had already electronically

filed the First Amended Complaint and was

merely forwarding her a copy to upload onto

the office’s mail computer system, which,

unlike the personal computer system located

in my office, can be accessed more readily by

any of the attorneys or staff in my office. 

As a result, although the First Amended

Complaint was timely completed and prepared

for filing, it was not filed until this

afternoon at 4:38 p.m., shortly after I

received the defense motion to dismiss and

request for sanctions that for the first time

alerted me to the above-described

discrepancy. 

3. My office had never had any similar

problem electronically filing documents with

this Court previously, and prospective

safeguards will be put in place to ensure

that there will be no reoccurrences.

4. Because the First Amended Complaint was

drafted and prepared for filing in a timely

fashion and in good faith compliance with the

Court’s July 14, 2006 Order, it is hereby

requested that said pleading be considered by

this Court. 

Exhibit 1 to Mr. Little’s declaration is a copy of the e-mail

from Mr. Little to his secretary referred to above captioned

“Fenters First Amended Complaint for Filing.” Exhibit 2 is a

copy of a document entitled “C:\Documents and Settings\cclogin\My

Documents\Fenters”. Exhibit 2 shows the following in pertinent

part:

Name Size Type Last Modified

fenters-com-1st-amended 110KB Adobe Acrobat Document 8/3/206 3:19 PM

Case 1:05-cv-01630-OWW -DLB Document 74 Filed 08/29/06 Page 3 of 10
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

4

fenters-com-1st-amended 101KB WordPerfect 11 Document 8/3/2006 3:18 PM

The Abbate defendants object to plaintiff’s ex parte

request, contending that this is the third request for relief

from court orders since March 27, 2006, that plaintiff’s counsel

has continued to delay the case, “disrupting this Court’s docket

and imposing prejudice on Defendants”. The Abbate Defendants

further contend that “the excuse offered by Plaintiffs’ [sic]

counsel is not reasonable and not supported by credible

evidence.” The Abbate Defendants assert:

The document presented by Plaintiffs’ [sic]

counsel does not establish that he made a

good faith effort to filed the First Amended

Complaint in a timely manner. The real

question that is not answered in a

satisfactory manner is why Plaintiffs’

counsel failed to notice for almost two weeks

that he failed to file the First Amended

Complaint. Since the Electronic Filing

System issues a confirmation of the filing of

a document immediately, there is no excuse

for Plaintiffs’ counsel’s failure in noticing

that the document was not filed. The more

likely reason for the delay is that the

complaint was neither drafted nor filed and

that Plaintiffs’ counsel is seeking to escape

his obligations to opposing counsel and this

Court yet again.

The exhibits submitted by Mr. Little indicate that Mr.

Little prepared the First Amended Complaint on August 3, 2006 and

forwarded it to his secretary for filing. The First Amended

Complaint filed with the court in Adobe format is dated August 3,

2006. A document prepared in Adobe format cannot be changed.

Furthermore, the document properties listed for the First Amended

Complaint establish that the First Amended Complaint was created

Case 1:05-cv-01630-OWW -DLB Document 74 Filed 08/29/06 Page 4 of 10
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

To determine the date a document filed in an action which was 2

created in Adobe format, the document is opened, the icon “file” is

opened, and the file “document properties” is opened.

5

in Adobe format on August 3, 2006. Because the First Amended 2

Complaint could not be changed after it was created in the Adobe

format, it necessarily follows that Mr. Little’s averments that

he drafted the First Amended Complaint and converted it to the

Adobe format on August 3, 2006 are accurate. The contentions of

the Abbate Defendants are speculative and based solely on the

assertion that Mr. Little should have noticed that he did not

receive an e-mail confirmation from the District Court that the

First Amended Complaint had been filed. While it may be correct

that Mr. Little and/or his staff should have noticed the absence

of the confirming e-mail from the District Court, it nonetheless

remains that Mr. Little prepared the First Amended Complaint and

forwarded it to his secretary for filing on August 3, 2006. The

record negates any inference that Mr. Little deliberately failed

to comply with the July 14, 2006 Order and supports the inference

that Mr. Little reasonably believed that the First Amended

Complaint would be timely filed. 

The Abbate Defendants moved to dismiss this action as

against them pursuant to Rule 41(b), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, and for an award of attorneys’ fees as a sanction. 

This motion was filed before the First Amended Complaint was

filed and triggered the belated filing of the First Amended

Complaint. 

Case 1:05-cv-01630-OWW -DLB Document 74 Filed 08/29/06 Page 5 of 10
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

6

Rule 41(b) provides that a defendant may move for dismissal

of an action for "failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to

comply with these rules or any order of court." “[I]n order to

dismiss a case as a sanction, the district court must consider

five factors: ‘(1) the public’s interest in expeditious

resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its

docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and

(5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.’ ....” 

Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th

Cir.1999). Dismissal as a sanction should be imposed only in

extreme circumstances. Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 273 (9th

Cir.1992); Thompson v. Housing Auth. of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d

829, 831 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 829 (1986). 

Dismissal as a sanction should be imposed only in extreme

circumstances." 

With regard to the first factor, the Abbate Defendants

assert that plaintiffs “delayed in bringing their action and

further delayed the hearing on the motions to dismiss.” The

Abbate Defendants note that plaintiff alleges she was forced to

resign from her employment by the Abbate Defendants in March 2003

and that the criminal prosecution against plaintiff which forms

the basis of her allegations of malicious prosecution terminated

in Tiffany’s favor in September 2005. The Complaint was filed on

December 22, 2005. After obtaining stipulations to extend the

time to respond to the Complaint, the Abbate Defendants (and

Case 1:05-cv-01630-OWW -DLB Document 74 Filed 08/29/06 Page 6 of 10
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

7

other defendants) filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint on

February 24, 2006, noticing the motion for hearing on April 10,

2006. On March 27, 2006, plaintiffs applied for an extension of

time to oppose the motions to dismiss and for a continuance of

the hearing date. The requested extension and continuance was

granted by Order filed on March 29, 2006, plaintiffs being

ordered to file their oppositions by May 29, 2006 and continuing

oral argument to June 26, 2006. On May 30, 2006, plaintiffs

again applied for an extension of time to file oppositions to the

motions to dismiss and for a continuance of oral argument. By

Order filed on June 12, 2006, plaintiffs’ second request was

granted, plaintiffs’ oppositions to be filed by June 20, 2006 and

oral argument to be heard on June 30, 2006. Plaintiffs timely

complied with this Order. In both instances, plaintiffs’ counsel

requested the extensions and continuances because of the press of

business in other cases. 

The first factor does not weigh in favor of dismissal of

this action. Any delay in bringing the action cannot weigh in

favor of dismissal if the action is filed within the applicable

statute of limitations. Furthermore, plaintiffs obtained court

orders allowing the extensions of time and continuance of oral

argument. 

The Abbate Defendants argue that the second factor weighs in

favor of dismissal:

Every time the plaintiffs failed to comply

with a Court order ..., the Court must

rearrange its docket and hearing schedule. 

Case 1:05-cv-01630-OWW -DLB Document 74 Filed 08/29/06 Page 7 of 10
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

8

The case has effectively been on hold since

December of 2005 due to the delays imposed by

the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have

disobeyed Court orders on three occasions;

they twice failed to file an opposition in a

timely manner and then failed to file the

amended complaint within the time prescribed

by the Court. Thus, the plaintiffs’ delays

have usurped the Court’s need to manage its

own docket. 

As discussed supra, the failure to file the First Amended

Complaint within the time prescribed by the July 14, 2006 Order

was not deliberate and resulted from miscommunication. The two

extensions of time and continuances of oral argument were granted

after Mr. Little explained the need for the continuances. 

Therefore, the characterization that plaintiffs’ disobeyed three

court orders is exaggerated. This factor does not weigh in favor

of dismissal under such circumstances. 

The third factor, prejudice to the defendants, is asserted

by the Abbate Defendants to weigh in favor of dismissal as a

sanction. The Abbate Defendants assert that “plaintiffs delayed

in serving the summons and complaint and then delayed for months

the hearing on the defendants’ motion to dismiss.” 

The Complaint was filed on December 23, 2005. Service of

summons and complaint was made on James Abbate and Yosemite

Chevron on December 29, 2005, on John Abbate on January 4, 2006,

and on Abbco Investments and Robert Abbate on January 6, 2006. 

Therefore, the assertion that plaintiffs willfully delayed in

serving summons and complaint is not substantiated by the record. 

As discussed supra, plaintiffs demonstrated to the court’s

Case 1:05-cv-01630-OWW -DLB Document 74 Filed 08/29/06 Page 8 of 10
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

9

satisfaction that extensions of time and continuances of oral

argument in connection with the motions to dismiss were required

because of Mr. Little’s commitments in other cases. Although the

Abbate Defendants refer to Ninth Circuit authority that “the risk

of prejudice to the defendant is related to the plaintiff’s

reason for defaulting in failing to timely amend”, Yourish,

supra, 191 F.3d at 991, Mr. Little thought the First Amended

Complaint had been timely filed. Therefore, this factor does not

weigh in favor of dismissal.

The Abbate Defendants also move for an award of attorneys’

fees in the amount of $3,600.00 as a sanction for the failure to

timely file the First Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 41(b)

and the court’s inherent powers.

The Ninth Circuit requires “a finding of bad faith before

sanctions may be imposed under the court’s inherent power.” 

Zambrano v. City of Tustin, 885 F.2d 1473, 1478 (9 Cir.1989). th

No such finding can be made here. With regard to Rule 41(b),

although an award of attorneys’ fees may be a lesser sanction for

the failure to file the First Amended Complaint on August 3, 2006

as required by the Order, the record set forth above establishes

that the failure to comply was due to negligence at best. There

has been no willful violation of the July 14, 2006 Order. 

For the reasons set forth above:

1. Plaintiff’s “Ex Parte Request That Court Consider

Belatedly Filed First Amended Complaint Due to Inadvertent

Clerical Error” is GRANTED.

Case 1:05-cv-01630-OWW -DLB Document 74 Filed 08/29/06 Page 9 of 10
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

10

2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.

41(b) and Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

3. Oral argument set for September 18, 2006 is vacated.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 25, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01630-OWW -DLB Document 74 Filed 08/29/06 Page 10 of 10