Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02098/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02098-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1 

19cv2098-L-LL 

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 

JOSE LUIS BARAJAS CENTENO, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITY OF CARLSBAD, et al., 

Defendants. 

 Case No.: 19cv2098-L-LL 

ORDER FOLLOWING SHOW 

CAUSE HEARING: (1) IMPOSING 

SANCTIONS; AND (2) SETTING 

FOLLOW-UP SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE 

 

On December 18, 2019, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause as to why 

sanctions should not be imposed on Plaintiff for Plaintiff’s failure to appear in-person at 

the December 16, 2019 Early Neutral Evaluation (“ENE”). ECF No. 10. On January 9, 

2020, the Court held the Show Cause Hearing. ECF No. 18. 

After considering the filings submitted by counsel for the Parties ([ECF Nos. 12-

15]), the Court concludes that Plaintiff should be sanctioned in the amount, and for the 

reasons, set forth below. 

RELEVANT BACKGROUND 

On November 4, 2019, the Court issued a Notice and Order for an Early Neutral 

Evaluation to be held on December 16, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. ECF No. 3. The ENE Notice 

required that all parties and the principal attorneys responsible for the litigation attend the 

ENE. 

Case 3:19-cv-02098-RSH-DEB Document 19 Filed 01/09/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2 

19cv2098-L-LL 

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

Specifically, the ENE Notice stated: 

Personal Appearance of Parties Required: All parties, 

adjusters for insured parties, and other representatives of a 

party having full and complete authority to enter into a 

binding settlement, and the principal attorneys responsible 

for the litigation, must be present in person and legally 

and factually prepared to discuss settlement of the case. 

Counsel appearing without their clients (whether or not 

counsel has been given settlement authority) will be cause 

for immediate imposition of sanctions and may also result 

in the immediate termination of the conference . . . . 

Unless there is good cause, persons required to attend the 

conference pursuant to this Order shall not be excused 

from personal attendance. In and of itself, having to travel 

a long distance to appear in person is not “good cause.” 

Motions seeking a waiver of the personal appearance 

requirement must establish good cause and be filed at 

least seven (7) days prior to the conference. Failure to 

appear at the ENE conference will be grounds for 

sanctions. 

Id. at 2. 

 On December 12, 2019, after reviewing Plaintiff’s Confidential Statement, the Court 

issued an Order denying Plaintiff’s request to be excused from appearing in-person at the 

ENE (to the extent Plaintiff was making such a request). ECF No. 7 at 1. The Court’s Order 

made it clear that Plaintiff was expected to appear in-person. Id. 

 On December 16, 2019, the Court attempted to convene an ENE as scheduled. ECF 

No. 8. Plaintiff failed to appear. For these reasons, on December 18, 2019, the Court issued 

an Order to Show Cause as to why Plaintiff should not be sanctioned. ECF No. 10. 

 On December 20, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel submitted declarations in response to the 

Court’s Order. ECF Nos. 12-13. On December 23, 2019, Defendant filed a response. ECF 

No. 14. On December 23, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel filed an amended declaration. ECF No. 

15. Plaintiff did not submit a declaration. See Docket. 

/// 

Case 3:19-cv-02098-RSH-DEB Document 19 Filed 01/09/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3 

19cv2098-L-LL 

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

ANALYSIS 

I. Plaintiff’s Failure to Appear 

“The authority of a federal court to order attendance of attorneys, [and] parties . . . 

at settlement conferences and to impose sanctions for disregard of the court’s orders is so 

well established as to be beyond doubt.” Chavarria v. Mgmt. & Training Corp., No. 

16cv0617-H-RBB, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196983, at *12 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2016) 

(citation omitted). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f) provides that the Court may sanction a party 

or its attorney if the party “fails to appear at a scheduling or other pretrial conference[.]” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(1)(A). Similarly, Civil Local Rule 16.1(c)(1)(c) provides that 

“[s]anctions may be appropriate for an unexcused failure to attend [an ENE conference].” 

S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 16.1(c)(1)(c). 

In his declaration, Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Genaro Lara, states that Plaintiff met with 

him in the middle of November 2019. ECF No. 15 at ¶ 5. According to the declaration, at 

the meeting, Plaintiff stated to Mr. Lara that he was “stressed, fearful, and in extreme fear 

for his safety” at the hands of Carlsbad police officers. Consequently, Plaintiff informed 

Mr. Lara that he would take some time to travel to Mexico “to obtain relief from police 

misconduct[.]” Id. Plaintiff did not provide Mr. Lara with a return date. Id. Although Mr. 

Lara subsequently left several messages on Plaintiff’s phone, Plaintiff still failed to appear 

at the ENE, and did not return Mr. Lara’s calls. Id. at 5. 

In a responsive declaration, Defendant’s counsel, Mr. Daniel S. Moddaferi, states 

that upon investigation, he was unable to find any evidence that Plaintiff was being 

harassed or bothered by Carlsbad police officers following the incident set forth in 

Plaintiff’s Complaint. ECF No. 14 at ¶¶ 7-13. 

In this case, counsel for Plaintiff’s explanation is not sufficient to persuade the Court 

that sanctions are not justified. As an initial matter, Plaintiff did not submit a declaration 

or any other evidence showing that he continued to be harassed by Carlsbad police officers 

following the incidents set forth in his Complaint. Indeed, Mr. Moddaferi’s declaration 

Case 3:19-cv-02098-RSH-DEB Document 19 Filed 01/09/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4 

19cv2098-L-LL 

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

suggests that Plaintiff was directly contacting Carlsbad police officers as recently as 

November 16, 2019. See ECF No. 14 at ¶ 12. Plaintiff also does not provide any 

explanation for why his counsel was unable to reach him in Mexico or why he did not 

return Mr. Lara’s calls. 

In his declaration, Mr. Lara asserts Plaintiff did not “willfully” or “intentionally” 

disobey the Court’s order. ECF No. 15 at ¶ 7. Even if this were true, the Court “need not 

find bad faith in order to award sanctions pursuant to Rule 16(f).” Chavarria, 2016 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 196983, at *14 (citations omitted). “Rather, the Court may impose sanctions 

under Rule 16(f) for ‘unintentional or negligent noncompliance with the court’s pretrial 

orders.” Id.; see also Lucas Auto. Eng'g, Inc. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 275 F.3d 762, 

769 (9th Cir. 2001) (District Court did not err in imposing sanctions for unintentional 

failure to attend mediation session). 

Here, the Court is mindful of both: (1) the costs Defendant incurred in having its 

counsel and representatives appear in-person at the ENE; and (2) the time Plaintiff wasted 

in failing to appear—time the Court could have used to address other matters on its docket. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that the imposition of monetary sanctions is both 

reasonable and just. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions in the amount 

of $250.00 to the Miscellaneous Fines, Penalties and Forfeitures, Not Otherwise Classified 

Fund of the United States Treasury. See Civ. LR 83.1.b. Plaintiff is additionally 

ORDERED through his counsel to file a Notice of Payment of Sanctions to the Court on 

or before January 31, 2020. 

II. Settlement Conference 

The Court additionally sets a follow-up settlement conference for February 4, 2020

at 1:30 p.m.. The Court’s requirements regarding the individuals who must be present inperson, Plaintiff’s duty to notify, and additional requirements regarding requests to excuse 

an appearance or to continue a settlement conference remain as set. See ECF No. 3 at ¶¶ 1-

3, 5, 7. 

In particular, the Court advises Plaintiff (as the Court also did at the January 9, 2020 

Case 3:19-cv-02098-RSH-DEB Document 19 Filed 01/09/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5 

19cv2098-L-LL 

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

Show Cause Hearing) that if Plaintiff continues to fail to comply with the Court’s Order, 

the Court may recommend to the District Judge that his case be dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 41(b) (“[I]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, 

a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it.”). See Hells Canyon 

Pres. Council v. United States Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he 

consensus among our sister circuits, with which we agree, is that courts may dismiss under 

Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least under certain circumstances.”) (citing Olsen v. Mapes, 333 

F.3d 1199, 1204 n.3 (10th Cir. 2003) (“The Rule has long been interpreted to permit courts 

to dismiss actions sua sponte for a plaintiff's failure to prosecute or comply with the rules 

of civil procedure or court's orders.”)). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 9, 2020 

Case 3:19-cv-02098-RSH-DEB Document 19 Filed 01/09/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5