Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02582/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02582-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATHANIEL WEISKIRCHER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,

Defendant.

No. 2:19–cv–2582–JAM–KJN

ORDER

(ECF Nos. 27, 41)

Currently before the court is defendant American Airlines’ motion for sanctions against

plaintiffs for violating the court’s discovery orders in this case. (ECF No. 27.) As filed on

December 30, 2020, defendant’s motion sought: (1) recovery of attorneys’ fees incurred in 

bringing defendant’s successful motion to compel; and (2) dismissal of plaintiffs’ entire action 

with prejudice. (ECF No. 27.1 at 2; see ECF Nos. 19, 23.) At that time, neither the court nor 

defendant knew that plaintiffs’ discovery failings both leading to and following the motion to 

compel were in large part due to the flagging health of plaintiffs’ counsel, Mr. Robert Heintz, a 

solo practitioner. Shortly before the date set for hearing of defendant’s motion for sanctions

(February 11, 2021), Mr. Robin Smith associated into the case as new counsel at Mr. Heintz’s 

request—and with plaintiffs’ consent. (ECF Nos. 29, 30.) Through Mr. Smith, plaintiffs filed an 

opposition to defendant’s sanctions motion in which they agreed that monetary sanctions are 

warranted against Mr. Heintz, but argued that Mr. Heintz’s errors and omissions do not merit 

Case 2:19-cv-02582-JAM-KJN Document 42 Filed 03/12/21 Page 1 of 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

2

termination of plaintiffs’ case. (ECF No. 28.) Mr. Smith informed the court that Mr. Heintz had 

been hospitalized after suffering a stroke on January 27, 2021, and attested that those close to 

Mr. Heintz had witnessed a decline in his mental acuity and memory over the previous several 

months. (Id. at 2-3; ECF No. 28.3.) Mr. Heintz provided a signed declaration (prepared by 

Mr. Smith) agreeing to pay “whatever monetary sanction the Court imposes” and taking full 

responsibility for his “serious errors in this case.” (ECF No. 28.2 at 1.) He apologized to his 

clients, to the court, and to defense counsel, beseeching the court not to penalize plaintiffs for his 

lapses. (Id. at 1-2.)

Defendant at first maintained its position that terminating sanctions were warranted (ECF 

No. 33), but with the court’s urging and with Mr. Smith’s cooperation, the parties reached an 

agreement to allow the case to get back on track with Mr. Smith now at the helm (ECF Nos. 35, 

38). Giving effect to this agreement, the court granted the parties’ request to stay discovery in 

this action until May 20, 2021. (ECF No. 40.) 

All that is left for the court to resolve, therefore, is defendant’s outstanding unopposed

request for an award of its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in bringing its original motion to 

compel, as a sanction for plaintiffs’ failure to obey the court’s order granting the motion to 

compel. (ECF No. 27.) On March 8, 2021, defendant—at the court’s request—filed an amended 

declaration in support of its motion for sanctions. (ECF No. 41; see ECF No. 40 at 3.) Therein, 

defense counsel attests that defendant incurred attorneys’ fees totaling $7,152.50 in connection 

with the motion to compel. (ECF No. 41 at 4.) The billing records attached to the declaration 

support this figure. (ECF No. 41.1.)

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(C), “the court must order the disobedient 

party, the attorney advising that party, or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including 

attorney’s fees, caused by the failure [to obey an order to provide or permit discovery], unless the 

failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” 

Plaintiffs’ counsel admits that his discovery failures were inexcusable, and there are no 

circumstances making an attorneys’ fees award unjust. Further, the court finds defense counsel’s 

hours and rates reasonable.

Case 2:19-cv-02582-JAM-KJN Document 42 Filed 03/12/21 Page 2 of 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

3

Given Mr. Smith’s apparent willingness and ability to provide the long-awaited discovery 

responses and document production, the court does not find the drastic sanction of dismissal of 

plaintiffs’ case warranted at this time. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s motion for sanctions (ECF No. 27) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN 

PART;

2. Defendant is awarded attorneys’ fees pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 37(b)(2)(C) in the amount of $7,152.50, to be paid personally by Robert A. 

Heintz due to the conduct that violated the court’s discovery orders, as articulated in the 

record and in the court’s prior orders. These discovery sanctions must be paid to 

defendant within 14 days of the date of entry of this order, and counsel may not pass on 

the costs of such sanctions to his clients either directly or indirectly; and 

3. Within 14 days of the date of entry of this order, plaintiffs’ counsel shall notify the court 

in writing that Mr. Heintz has made such payment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 12, 2021

weis.2582

Case 2:19-cv-02582-JAM-KJN Document 42 Filed 03/12/21 Page 3 of 3