Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03728/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03728-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Fraud

---

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

LES FIELDS/C.C.H.I. INSURANCE 

SERVICES,

Plaintiff,

v.

STUART M HINES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-03728-MEJ 

ORDER FOR SANCTIONS

INTRODUCTION

After Plaintiff Les Field/C.C.H.I Insurance Services’ (“Plaintiff”) repeated failures to 

follow Court orders, meet mandatory deadlines, and oppose Defendants Stuart Hines’ (“Hines”) 

and the InterRemedy Defendants’1(together, “Defendants”) Motions for Summary Judgment, the

Court issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) why it should not dismiss the action for failure to 

prosecute and failure to comply with Court deadlines. OSC, Dkt. No. 75. Based on Plaintiff’s 

response to the OSC, the Court ordered Plaintiff to make certain payments to the Clerk of the 

Court, and further ordered Plaintiff and his counsel to jointly pay to Defendants the reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and costs they incurred in drafting and filing their response to the Court’s OSC and 

their Replies to the Oppositions. Pl.’s Resp. to OSC, Dkt. No. 78; Order Discharging OSC at 3, 

Dkt. No. 79. For the reasons set forth below, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to pay Defendants a 

total of $7,164.50 in attorneys’ fees and costs. 

DISCUSSION

Under these circumstances, the Court may sanction Plaintiff and his counsel pursuant to its 

 

1

The InterRemedy Defendants are InterRemedy Insurance Services, LLC; Deborah Canadas; 

Joyce Sykes McGuire; and Kim Willoughby. 

Case 3:15-cv-03728-MEJ Document 94 Filed 11/28/16 Page 1 of 4
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

inherent authority and to 28 U.S.C. § 1927. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 41-42, 50 

(1991); Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 991 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court may impose sanctions under 

its inherent power because Plaintiff repeatedly has willfully disobeyed Court orders. See Octane 

Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749, 1758 (2014) (citation omitted). 

Under § 1927, an attorney “who so multiplies the proceedings . . . 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.” “The key term in [§ 1927] is ‘vexatiously’; 

carelessly, negligently, or unreasonably multiplying the proceedings is not enough.” In re 

Girardi, 611 F.3d 1027, 1061 (9th Cir. 2010). A “finding that the attorney recklessly or 

intentionally misled the court is sufficient to impose sanctions under § 1927 . . . .” Id. (citations 

omitted). 

On September 8, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to 

respond to Defendants’ two Motions for Summary Judgment. Sept. 8, 2016 Order, Dkt. No. 16. 2 

In doing so, the Court extended the deadline for Plaintiff to file his oppositions by two weeks, to 

September 22, 2016. Id. The Court also ordered Plaintiff to “carefully review his pleadings to 

ensure they comply with all applicable Local Rules, Standing Orders, Case Management Orders, 

and Prior Orders.” Id. Plaintiff did not file his oppositions on September 22, 2016. On 

September 26, 2016, the Court issued the OSC. In response, Plaintiff timely responded to the 

OSC by filing one of the two oppositions that had been due on September 22, 2016 and informed 

the Court he would file the second opposition at his convenience in the next few days. See Pl.’s 

Resp. ¶ 9, Dkt. No. 78 (“Presently, I am doing the final edit and organization for filing the 

Response to Defendant InterRemedy’s et al. Summary Judgment Motion. I plan to file on October 

4, 2016, but no later than October 5, 2016.” (emphasis in original)). Plaintiff explained he had 

been unable to timely file his oppositions by the September 22 Court-ordered deadline for doing 

so because his client had been having numerous medical problems since November 2014, and “fell 

 

2

The Court identified the numerous Court orders Plaintiff disobeyed in its OSC, and bases this 

order of sanctions on Plaintiff’s willful disobedience of the September 8, 2016 Order.

 

Case 3:15-cv-03728-MEJ Document 94 Filed 11/28/16 Page 2 of 4
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

ill and was unable to focus or concentrate” on completing his declaration “during the week of 

September 19, 2016.” Id. ¶ 7. While Plaintiff assured the Court he did not delay “to obtain an 

unfair advantage in this litigation,” he fails to demonstrate that his failure to comply with the 

Court’s Order was anything but willful. The fact his client fell ill 3 days before the extended 

September 22 deadline in no way explains why Plaintiff was unable to meet the deadline, request 

another extension based on exigent circumstances, or inform Defendants and the Court of the 

situation. It also fails to explain counsel’s lack of professional courtesy and failure to follow 

Court orders and meet his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 obligations.

3

The policy underlying the power to impose sanctions is:

the need to preserve the integrity of the judicial process in order to 

retain confidence that the process works to uncover the truth . . . . 

The courts must protect the integrity of the judicial process because, 

[a]s soon as the process falters . . . the people are then justified in 

abandoning support for the system. Sanctions are available to the 

district courts not merely to penalize those whose conduct may be 

deemed to warrant such a sanction, but to deter those who might be 

tempted to such conduct in the absence of such a deterrent.

Oracle Am., Inc. v. Terix Computer Co., Inc., 2015 WL 2398993, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 19, 2015)

(internal citations and quotation marks omitted). These powers, however, “must be exercised with 

restraint and discretion.” Chambers, 501 U.S. at 44. The “primary aspect of that discretion is the 

ability to fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses the judicial process.” Id. at 44-

45. The Court’s sanction required Plaintiff and his counsel to pay the reasonable attorneys’ fees 

and costs Defendants incurred in filing their Reply briefs to address Plaintiff’s failure to obey its 

orders and his abuse of the judicial process. See Order Discharging OSC. In response, 

Defendants filed declarations describing the fees and costs they incurred to complete these 

 

3

In addition, Plaintiff violated the Court’s order requiring him to ensure his pleadings complied 

with the Local Rules. In violation of Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiff filed evidentiary objections 

that were not contained within his Opposition memoranda. See Evid. Obj. to Hines Mot., Dkt. No. 

77-8; Evid. Obj. to InterRemedy Mot., Dkt. No. 80-2. As further addressed in the Court’s 

September 8, 2016, Plaintiff’s pleadings were deficient in many other ways. See Order re: Summ.

J., Dkt. No. 92. Plaintiff also violated Local Rule 7-5(b), which requires that declarations “contain 

only facts, must conform as much as possible to the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e), and 

must avoid conclusions and argument.” Id. at 4-7. 

Case 3:15-cv-03728-MEJ Document 94 Filed 11/28/16 Page 3 of 4
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

documents. See Lucier Decl., Dkt. No. 86 (requesting $20,812.50 in fees and $86.60 in costs on 

behalf of Defendant Hines); Aguilar Decl., Dkt. No. 87 (requesting $11,305 in fees and $77.90 in 

costs on behalf of the InterRemedy Defendants). Plaintiff objects that Defendants’ requests are 

not reasonable. Pl.’s Obj., Dkt. No. 88.

The Court parsed through Plaintiff’s Oppositions and the materials submitted in support of 

it and appreciates that responding to those documents was challenging and time-consuming. 

While the amount requested by Defendants is not unreasonable (especially in light of these facts), 

the Court finds they exceed the appropriate sanction the Court may impose in its discretion. The 

Court accordingly ORDERS Plaintiff and his counsel to pay attorneys’ fees and costs in the 

amounts of $3,586.60 to Defendant Hines and $3,577.90 to the InterRemedy Defendants. 

Payment shall be made within 90 days of this Order. Plaintiff shall file a proof of payment with 

the Court by the same date. Failure to make these payments will incur a $100 penalty per day of 

non-compliance.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 28, 2016

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-03728-MEJ Document 94 Filed 11/28/16 Page 4 of 4