Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01437/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01437-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 355
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Tort/Motor Vehicle (P.I.)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IRVING VERDUZCO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al.,

 Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:13-CV-01437-LJO-BAM

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE 

SANCTIONS

On September 9, 2013, Defendant, the Ford Motor Company, through counsel Frank P. Kelly, of 

Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., filed a notice of removal of Superior Court of California for the County 

of Stanislaus Case No. 615207. Doc. 1. By a November 15, 2013 Order, this case was remanded to state 

court. Doc. 17 (“Remand Order”). The Remand Order followed extensive litigation in response to 

Plaintiff’s motion to remand, involving the expenditure of considerable judicial resources, including the 

issuance by the assigned Magistrate Judge of Findings and Recommendations (“F&Rs”), Doc. 15, as 

well as the necessity of reviewing and responding to Defendant’s objections thereto, Docs. 16 & 17. On 

December 4, 2013, this Court received a notice from the Stanislaus County Superior Court suggesting 

that the state court never received notice of the removal. See Doc. 19. Review of the underlying docket 

in Stanislaus County Superior Court No. 615207, Verduzco, I. v. Ford Motor Company, confirms that no 

notice of removal was provided to the state court and that a jury trial is currently underway in the state 

court action.

Notice to the state court is a prerequisite to removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d). Defense counsel’s 

failure to file such a notice evidences bad faith intent to manipulate the judicial process and has without 

Case 1:13-cv-01437-LJO-BAM Document 20 Filed 12/11/13 Page 1 of 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

2

question multiplied the proceedings. A federal court may base an order of sanctions on authority granted 

by 28 U.S.C. § 1927, which states, in pertinent part, that:

Any attorney ... who so multiplies the proceedings in any case 

unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy 

personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably 

incurred because of such conduct. 

“Section 1927 authorizes the imposition of sanctions against any lawyer who wrongfully proliferates 

litigation proceedings once a case has commenced.” Pacific Harbor Capital, Inc. v. Carnival Air Lines, 

Inc., 210 F.3d 1112, 1117 (9th Cir. 2000). This is one of the busiest judicial districts in the United 

States. Misuse of Court resources will not be tolerated. 

Accordingly, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927, Defense counsel is ordered to show cause in 

writing on or before December 20, 2013 why he should not be sanctioned in the amount of $10,000 for 

multiplying the proceedings. Payment in full of the sanction to the Clerk of Court will discharge this 

order to show cause. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2013 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

b2e55c0d

Case 1:13-cv-01437-LJO-BAM Document 20 Filed 12/11/13 Page 2 of 2