Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00055/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00055-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2409(a) Quiet Title Action

---

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

06cv0055

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD LELAND NEAL,

Plaintiff,

v.

RIC JUAREZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 06-CV-0055-J (JMA)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT WMC

MORTGAGE CORP.’S REQUEST FOR

SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF

[Doc. No. 108]

On March 21, 2007, this Court issued an Order Denying

Remainder of Plaintiff’s “Motion For Sanctions.” Doc. No. 110. 

The Order required, in response to Defendant WMC Mortgage Corp.’s

(“WMC’s”) request for sanctions against Plaintiff under Rule

37(a)(4)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that

Plaintiff file a response to the request for sanctions. See

WMC’s Response to Plaintiff Richard Leland Neal’s Supplemental

Brief for an Order Compelling Disclosure [Doc. No. 108] at 3-4;

Mar. 21, 2007 Order [Doc. No. 110] at 3. The Court received

Plaintiff’s response on April 6, 2007.

Under Rule 37(a)(4)(B), if a motion to compel discovery is

denied,

Case 3:06-cv-00055-J-JMA Document 112 Filed 04/13/07 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

27

28

2 06cv0055

the court . . . shall, after affording an opportunity

to be heard, require the moving party . . . to pay to

the party . . . who opposed the motion the reasonable

expenses incurred in opposing the motion, including

attorney’s fees, unless the court finds that the making

of the motion was substantially justified or that other

circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(4)(B). Here, Plaintiff’s motion for

sanctions, construed by the Court as a motion to compel

discovery, was denied in full. See Feb. 23, 2007 Order [Doc. No.

101] & Mar. 21, 2007 Order. The Court finds that the motion was

not “substantially justified.” However, an award of sanctions

against Plaintiff would be unjust under the circumstances. It

does not appear to the Court that Plaintiff made his motion with

the intent to harass or annoy WMC. Rather, the Court finds that

notwithstanding his failure to demonstrate that WMC withheld any

documents, Plaintiff genuinely believed that WMC had not fully

responded to his discovery requests. See, e.g., Rhodes v.

Electronic Data Systems Corp., 2007 WL 840307 at *2 (E.D. Cal.

2007) (denying motion for sanctions under Rule 37(a)(4)(B)

against pro se plaintiff). 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES WMC’s request for sanctions

against Plaintiff. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 13, 2007

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00055-J-JMA Document 112 Filed 04/13/07 Page 2 of 2