Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03539/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03539-7/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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID CLIFTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-03539-KAW 

ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS; 

ORDER REFERRING ATTORNEY 

STANLEY GOFF TO THE STANDING 

COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL 

CONDUCT FOR DISCIPLINARY 

PROCEEDINGS

Plaintiff David Clifton filed this lawsuit against the City and County of San Francisco and 

four San Francisco Police Officers asserting civil rights violations based on allegations of 

excessive force. During the course of this litigation, Plaintiff’s counsel Stanley Goff has failed to 

appear at three scheduled case management conferences. On November 3, 2015, the Court issued 

a second order to show cause. 

On November 12, 2015, the Court held a hearing, at which Mr. Goff appeared, and, for the 

reasons set forth below, the Court imposes sanctions in the amount of $1,000.00. In addition, the 

Court refers Mr. Goff to the Standing Committee on Professional Conduct for the United States 

District Court for the Northern District of California for a determination as to whether further 

discipline is appropriate.

I. BACKGROUND

On November 3, 2015, the Court held a case management conference, where Plaintiff did 

not appear. This was the third time that Plaintiff’s counsel, Stanley Goff, had failed to appear at a 

scheduled case management conference in this case, as he also failed to appear on November 4, 

2014 and July 28, 2015. (See Minute Entries, Dkt. Nos. 12 & 31.) Previously, the Court issued 

and subsequently discharged an order to show cause concerning the July 28, 2015 failure to 

Case 4:14-cv-03539-KAW Document 51 Filed 11/24/15 Page 1 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

appear. (See Dkt. Nos. 30 & 37.)

On September 29, 2015, the Court scheduled a further case management conference for 

October 20, 2015. (Dkt. No. 41.) On October 15, 2015, the parties stipulated to continue the

October 20 case management conference to the earliest available date thereafter, because 

Plaintiff’s counsel had a scheduling conflict, as he had a scheduled mediation in San Francisco in 

another case. (Dkt. No. 44.) The Court approved the stipulation and continued the hearing to 

November 3, 2015. Id. Notwithstanding this accommodation, Mr. Goff failed to appear despite 

the numerous trial deadlines that were fast approaching. (11/3/15 Minute Entry, Dkt. No. 46.)

On November 3, 2015, the Court issued a second order to show cause to Mr. Goff why this 

case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, or, in the alternative, why he should not 

personally pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1000.00 for his failure to appear at the

November 3 case management conference. (2d OSC, Dkt. No. 45.) The Court set a hearing on the 

order to show cause for November 12, 2015, at which Mr. Goff and his client were ordered to 

personally appear. Id. On November 9, 2015, Mr. Goff filed a response, in which he stated that 

his failure to appear was “due to [a] calendaring software malfunction that failed to alert the 

undersigned counsel of the upcoming November 3, 2015 hearing date. . . .” (OSC Resp., Dkt. No. 

47 at 1.) 

On November 12, 2015, less than two hours before the hearing, Mr. Goff filed a 

declaration stating that he had been unsuccessful in contacting his client to notify him of the 

hearing and the fact that his presence was required. (Decl. of Stanley Goff, Dkt. No. 48 ¶¶ 5-7.)

On November 12, 2015, the Court held a hearing on the order to show cause at which Mr. 

Goff appeared. His client, Mr. Clifton, did not appear.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Generally, courts may impose sanctions against an attorney personally. The court has a 

duty to supervise the conduct of attorneys appearing before it. Erickson v. Newmar Corp., 87 F.3d 

298, 301 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Trust Corp., v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 701 F.2d 85, 87 (9th Cir. 

1983). Furthermore, the determination to sanction is subject to a court’s sound discretion. Dahl v. 

City of Huntington Beach, 84 F.3d 363, 367 (9th Cir. 1996). “For a sanction to be validly 

Case 4:14-cv-03539-KAW Document 51 Filed 11/24/15 Page 2 of 6
3

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

Northern District of California

imposed, the conduct in question must be sanctionable under the authority relied on.” 

Cunningham v. County of Los Angeles, 879 F.2d 481, 490 (9th Cir. 1988).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f) provides that, on its own motion, “the court may 

issue any just orders . . . if a party or its attorney: (A) fails to appear at a scheduling or other 

pretrial conference; . . . or (C) fails to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order.” Since the 

purpose of the rule is “to encourage forceful judicial management,” a court has broad discretion to 

sanction attorneys and parties who fail to comply with the court’s reasonable case management 

orders. Alutiq Int'l Solutions, LLC v. Lyons, 2012 WL 7801695, at *3 (D. Nev. Sep. 18, 2012) 

(citing Sherman v. United States, 801 F.2d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir.1986)). Rule 16 authorizes the 

court to impose the sanctions permitted by Rule 37, which include dismissal of an action in whole 

or in part, and the payment of expenses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v), (B); see also Civil L.R. 3-

9 (“Sanctions (including default or dismissal) may be imposed for failure to comply with local 

rules.”).

Moreover, federal courts have inherent power to impose monetary or other sanctions in 

order to control the conduct of the proceedings, protect the “orderly administration of justice,” and 

to maintain “the authority and dignity of the court.” Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 

764–67 (1980) (citations omitted). Such sanctions can be imposed for bad faith or willful 

disobedience of a court order, after a litigant has been given notice and an opportunity to be heard. 

Id.

III. DISCUSSION

Rule 16 expressly permits the imposition of monetary or other sanctions when a party fails 

to appear at a court-ordered conference, or otherwise fails to comply with a pretrial order. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 16(f). There is no dispute that Mr. Goff did not attend the November 3, 2015 case 

management conference, as he was ordered to do. Thus, under Rule 16, the Court may levy

reasonable sanctions against him.

The Court also has the inherent power to impose sanctions in order to compel compliance 

with court orders, control the proceedings, and to ensure that the authority and dignity of the court 

is maintained. 

Case 4:14-cv-03539-KAW Document 51 Filed 11/24/15 Page 3 of 6
4

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

Northern District of California

In considering Mr. Goff’s response to the order to show cause, the Court evaluates his 

credibility in light of his repeated failure to appear in the case, as well as his conduct in other cases

in this district. Despite a relatively brief legal career, Mr. Goff has accumulated several orders to 

show cause in this district for his failure to appear in court, at scheduled settlement conferences, 

and to otherwise comply with court orders. See Order to Show Cause, Westmore v. Regents of the 

University of California, No. 13-cv-01744-JSC (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2014)(failure to appear at 

scheduled settlement conference), ECF No. 43; Order to Show Cause, Fidge v. Lake County 

Sheriff’s Dept., No. 13-05182-YGR (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2014) (failure to appear at compliance 

hearing and failure to comply with a court order), ECF No. 71; Second Order to Show Cause, 

Fidge v. Lake County Sheriff’s Dept., No. 13-05182-YGR (N.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2014) (failure to 

comply with a court order and personally appear at hearing), ECF No. 80; Order to Show Cause, 

Pimental v. City of Hayward, No. 14-cv-04706-JCS (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2015) (failure to 

prosecute), ECF No. 17; Order to Show Cause, Washington v. Recology, No. 14-cv-05083-WHA 

(N.D. Cal. July 8, 2015) (failure to appear at court-ordered meet and confer conference), ECF No. 

34. 

Additionally, Mr. Goff has been personally sanctioned in connection with at least two of 

his cases. See Order on Def.’s Mot. for Sanctions, Redmond v. San Mateo Police Dept., No. 14-

cv-00998-DMR (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2015)(imposed sanctions of $3,092.50 on Mr. Goff 

personally), ECF No. 48; Order on Def.’s Mot. for Sanctions, Taylor v. San Mateo Police Dept., 

No. 14-cv-01000-DMR (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2015)(imposed sanctions of $2,500.00 on Mr. Goff 

personally), ECF No. 47. The Court notes that these two cases were related.

Turning to Mr. Goff’s response, the Court finds unconvincing his representation that his 

failure to appear was due to a malfunction with his calendaring software. (OSC Resp. at 1.) Had 

this been the first occasion in which Mr. Goff failed to appear, the Court may be more 

sympathetic, but this was the third time. As discussed above, Mr. Goff has also failed to appear at 

a number of proceedings in other cases in this district. Furthermore, Mr. Goff asked to continue 

the October 20 case management conference to the earliest available date, which was November 3, 

because he had a mediation scheduled in another case in San Francisco. (Dkt. No. 44.) As a result, 

Case 4:14-cv-03539-KAW Document 51 Filed 11/24/15 Page 4 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Mr. Goff knew or should have known that the hearing was continued to November 3, 2015. Thus, 

Mr. Goff’s scheduling difficulties cannot be wholly attributed to his choice in software and 

subsequent “malfunction,” as this was not an isolated incident. Accordingly, Mr. Goff’s failure to 

rectify the situation by improving his case management to keep track of case deadlines and 

hearings is tantamount to willful conduct. 

The Court also notes that Mr. Goff’s prosecution of this case was underwhelming. For 

example, Mr. Goff failed to propound any written discovery despite informing the Court that he 

was doing so. (See 7/21/15 Case Management Conference Statement, Dkt. No. 29 at 5 (“Plaintiff 

anticipates serving document requests, interrogatories, requests for admission, and taking 

depositions of the defendant SFPD officers.”); 8/18/15 Joint Case Management Conference 

Statement, Dkt. No. 35 at 4 (“Plaintiff has served document requests, interrogatories, request for 

admissions today in the mail to the Defendant.”)) In fact, Mr. Goff never propounded any 

discovery despite having more than six months to do so. (See Dkt. No. 19 at 7; Minute Entry for 

8/25/15 Case Management Conference, Dkt. No. 38 (Plaintiff’s oral request to extend discovery 

deadline was denied).)

Given Mr. Goff’s explanation for his failure to appear before this Court, and his behavior 

before other judges in this district, the Court can only conclude that his failure to appear at the 

November 3, 2015 case management conference was ultimately willful insofar as it was the result 

of careless case management. Accordingly, the Court will sanction Mr. Goff in the amount of 

$1,000.00 for the third failure to appear. 

The Court is also concerned that the current manner in which Mr. Goff is practicing law, 

while appearing to be in good faith, is harmful to his clients. Therefore, the Court refers Mr. Goff 

to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California’s Standing Committee on 

Professional Conduct for further investigation pursuant to Civil Local Rule 11-6(a)(1).

IV. CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that Mr. Goff’s repeated failures to appear at case 

management conferences support the imposition of sanctions under Rule 16(f) and the court’s 

inherent authority. Mr. Goff is, therefore, personally sanctioned in the amount of $1,000, which 

Case 4:14-cv-03539-KAW Document 51 Filed 11/24/15 Page 5 of 6
6

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

Northern District of California

shall be paid within 60 days of this order, to the Clerk of the U.S. District Court.

Additionally, Mr. Goff is referred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of 

California’s Standing Committee on Professional Conduct pursuant to Civil Local Rule 11-

6(a)(1). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 24, 2015

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:14-cv-03539-KAW Document 51 Filed 11/24/15 Page 6 of 6