Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00133/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00133-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Property Damage

---

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 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 1

Case No. C-05-00133

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

(JFEX1)

**E-Filed 04/29/2008**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF

AMERICA,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., DOES 1 to 10,

Inclusive,

 Defendant.

Case Number C-05-00133

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT

1

EMERSON ELECTRIC CO.’S

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS DUE TO

MISTRIAL

[re: docket no. 105]

Defendant Emerson Electric Co. (“Emerson”) moves for sanctions in the amount of

$20,527.39 against Plaintiff Safeco Insurance Company of America (“Safeco”). Safeco opposes

the motion and seeks a reasonable sum for attorney’s fees and costs incurred defending the

motion. For the reasons stated below, Emerson’s motion will be granted, and Safeco’s motion

will be denied.

I. BACKGROUND

On the second day of trial, Safeco called its insured, Ilene Sokoloff (“Mrs. Sokoloff”), as

Case 5:05-cv-00133-JF Document 121 Filed 04/29/08 Page 1 of 5
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

Case No. C-05-0133

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

(JFEX1)

the final witness in its case-in-chief. Motion at 2. Prior to trial, the Court had granted Emerson’s

motions in limine to exclude: (1) any reference to Mrs. Sokoloff’s husband’s illness; and (2) any

reference to any prior, unrelated problems with InSinkErator hot water dispensers in the Sokoloff

residence. Id. In direct contravention of these rulings, Mrs. Sokoloff testified on direct

examination regarding an alleged mold-related illness suffered by her husband and about a prior

leak in an unrelated hot water dispenser.

In its oral ruling granting Emerson’s motion for mistrial, the Court stated the following: 

The ruling on the in limine motion was broad enough to encompass not only a

reference to leukemia specifically but a reference to this type of illness generally and

certainly violated the spirit as well as the letter of the in limine. I think if that

were the only part of the testimony that was objectionable, the court nonetheless

would not . . . grant the motion, but would simply let the matter rest. However, it has

to be viewed in conjunction with . . . the other violation of an in limine ruling

which was much more specific and prejudicial. The court specifically ruled that

there was to be no mention of the fact that a previously installed InSinkErator [hot]

water dispenser had leaked prior to the one at . . . issue in this case. . . It expressly

and squarely violated the Court’s in limine ruling and the Court agrees with Mr.

Williams that it is prejudicial and there isn’t any way to unring the bell without

calling even further attention to the . . . fact that another unit made by the same

manufacturer and installed by the same installer had . . . leaked. 

Transcript at 66-67.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927, “any attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in

any court of the United States or any Territory thereof who so multiples 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.” 28 U.S.C. §

1927 (2007). An award of sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 or the district court’s inherent

authority requires a finding of recklessness or bad faith.” Barber v. Miller, 146 F.3d 707, 711

(9th Cir. 1998). Recklessness suffices to assess Section 1927 sanctions, but bad faith is required

for sanctions under the court’s inherent power. Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.

2001); B.K.B. v. Maui Police Department, 276 F.3d 1091, 1107-08 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Case 5:05-cv-00133-JF Document 121 Filed 04/29/08 Page 2 of 5
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

3

Case No. C-05-0133

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

(JFEX1)

III. DISCUSSION

Emerson argues that sanctions are appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 because Safeco’s

actions support the “recklessness plus knowledge” finding required to impose sanctions. Safeco

knew that the Court had excluded testimony and evidence regarding Dr. Sokoloff’s illness and

the unrelated hot water dispenser and in fact had litigated vigorously the in limine order at issue.

Emerson contends that in light of this knowledge, Safeco’s counsel acted recklessly by seeking a

chronology from Mrs. Sokoloff that served no legitimate purpose and created an undue and

foreseeable risk of introducing the excluded testimony. 

In opposition, Safeco contends that sanctions should be imposed only for willful actions,

including recklessness when combined with an additional factor such as frivolousness,

harassment, or an improper purpose. However, the Ninth Circuit has held that a finding of

recklessness and knowing conduct is sufficient to support the imposition of § 1927 sanctions. 

B.K.B. v. Maui Police Department, 276 F.3d at 1107-08; Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d at 939. 

Safeco’s argument that there was no foreseeable risk in soliciting a factual chronology

from Mrs. Sokoloff is unpersuasive. In light of the Court’s explicit restrictions of Mrs.

Sokoloff’s testimony and the vigor with which such restrictions were litigated before trial,

counsel’s open-ended questioning, particularly in the absence of apparent attempt by counsel to

curtail Mrs. Sokoloff’s “inadvertent expansion” of her chronology, was reckless. 

While the Court has no reason to doubt counsel’s representation that he admonished Mrs.

Sokoloff not to testify concerning the excluded matters and thus did not act with subjective bad

faith, § 1927 sanctions require only knowledge and recklessness. Moreover, the conduct in

question was extremely prejudicial and will require both the parties and the Court to expend

significant additional resources in retrying the case.

IV. ORDER

Good cause therefor appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Emerson’s motion for

sanctions in the amount of $20,527.39 is GRANTED. Safeco’s cross-motion for sanctions is

DENIED.

Case 5:05-cv-00133-JF Document 121 Filed 04/29/08 Page 3 of 5
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

4

Case No. C-05-0133

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

(JFEX1)

DATED: April 29, 2008.

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-00133-JF Document 121 Filed 04/29/08 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Case No. C-05-0133

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

(JFEX1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

scole@colenetlaw.com 

mwise@colenetlaw.com 

jwilliams@mjllp.com 

pmahoney@schiffhardin.com 

bkarabian@schiffhardin.com 

Case 5:05-cv-00133-JF Document 121 Filed 04/29/08 Page 5 of 5