Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00492/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00492-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

1

12-cv-0492-GPC-RBB

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

PAUL HUPP,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY DISTRICT 

ATTORNEY ET AL.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 12-cv-0492-GPC-RBB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

[ECF No. 300]

INTRODUCTION

Presently before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Paul Hupp’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to 

sanction defendants, former defendants and defense counsel. (Mot. Sanction, ECF No. 

300.) In his motion Plaintiff claims that Defendants filed perjured documents and 

obstructed justice by failing to withdraw perjured documents in connection with a joint 

motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution filed and denied more than a year ago. (Mot. 

Sanctions at 2-3, ECF No. 300.) Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions and requests that the 

Court disregard Defendants’ evidence. (Id. at 3.) County of San Diego filed a response 

on October 28, 2015. (Opp’n, ECF No. 304.) Having considered the parties submissions 

and applicable law, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.

//

Case 3:12-cv-00492-GPC-JLB Document 306 Filed 11/06/15 Page 1 of 4
2

12-cv-0492-GPC-RBB

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

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

As detailed in prior orders, this action stems from a lengthy history of state civil 

contempt and criminal court proceedings against Plaintiff Paul Hupp (“Plaintiff”) as well 

as Plaintiff’s subsequent detention in San Diego County jail. On February 28, 2012 

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 

1.) On August 28, 2012, Plaintiff filed a TAC, the current operative complaint. (ECF. No. 

64.) The TAC names eight Defendants, including the County of San Diego (“County”), 

the City of San Diego, the City of Beaumont, and five individual Defendants and alleges 

twelve separate causes of action. (Id.) Of these, all but the twelfth cause of actions against 

the County and Joseph Cargel have been dismissed. (See Order Joint Mot. Dismiss at 2, 

ECF No. 289.) On May 8, 2013, Cargel moved to dismiss the remaining cause of the 

action. (Cargel Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 121.) Cargel’s motion was denied on September 

17, 2013 and the case was stayed under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). (Mot. 

Dismiss Order at 9-10, ECF No. 156.) 

On July 18, 2014, the City of San Diego, joined by the County of San Diego, filed a 

motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 41(b), 37(b), and 37(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

procedure. (See Joint Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 273.) The basis of the joint motion was 

Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and failure to attend his noticed deposition in spite of a Court 

order compelling him to do so. (Id.) On September 12, 2014, Plaintiff filed an opposition 

to that motion, disputing that the City’s process server had made repeated attempts to serve 

Plaintiff with notice of his deposition. (Opp’n to Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 287.) At that 

point, only the twelfth cause of action remained and the case had been stayed under 

Younger abstention principles. On September 18, 2014, the Court denied the joint motion 

to dismiss without reaching the merits because of the stay. (Order Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 

289.) 

//

//

//

Case 3:12-cv-00492-GPC-JLB Document 306 Filed 11/06/15 Page 2 of 4
3

12-cv-0492-GPC-RBB

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

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s motion is premised on Defendants’ alleged wrongdoing by filing and 

failing to withdraw allegedly perjured documents in contravention of federal and state law. 

(Mot. Sanctions at 2, ECF No. 300.) For the reasons set forth below, the court DENIES

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions. 

First, Plaintiff fails to offer any legal authority supporting sanctions under these 

circumstances and the Court finds none. 

Second, Plaintiff’s proffered evidence does not establish that Defendants or 

Defendants’ counsel acted improperly or in bad faith. In support of their joint motion to 

dismiss, the City Defendants attached a “Non Service Report” signed under penalty of 

perjury dated June 8, 2014 indicating that Kathy Chandler of Diversified Legal Services, 

Inc., the City Defendants’ process server, attempted to serve Plaintiff with the Deposition 

Notice 17 times at his residence between May 23, 2014 and June 8, 2014. (Joint Mot. 

Dismiss, Milligan Decl, Ex. 4 (Non Service Report), ECF No. 273-5.) In his opposition to 

the joint motion to dismiss, Plaintiff argued that Kathy Chandler’s statements regarding 

service constituted perjury. (Opp’n Joint Mot. Dismiss at 4, ECF No. 287.) In support of 

his contention, Plaintiff provided evidence that the gated community he lives in requires 

process servers to show proper credentials and sign in, restricts process services to 7:30 

a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and has 24/7 video surveillance. (Id.) Plaintiff argued that the process 

server sign in sheets for that period did not reflect that Kathy Chandler attempted service 

when she claimed and that there was only a single entry on June 2, 2014 indicating that 

Kathy Chandler signed in. Assuming arguendo that the process server’s report constituted 

perjury, Plaintiff does not provide evidence suggesting that Defendants or counsel knew 

about the inaccuracy of the process server’s statements or submitted her statements in bad 

faith or with an improper purpose. The Court does not find that counsel’s reliance or 

submission of the process server’s statements in support of the joint motion to dismiss

warrants sanctions. 

Case 3:12-cv-00492-GPC-JLB Document 306 Filed 11/06/15 Page 3 of 4
4

12-cv-0492-GPC-RBB

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

Third, the Court did not rely on any documents or alleged misrepresentations in 

support of the joint motion to dismiss in its ruling on the motion. In fact, the Court denied 

the motion, declining to use its discretion to dismiss the case under Federal Rule of 

Procedure 41(b) when the case was stayed pending resolution of Plaintiff’s state criminal 

appeal. (See Mot. Dismiss Order at 2, ECF No. 289.) Therefore, Plaintiff was not 

prejudiced by the filing of allegedly perjured documents in support of the joint motion to 

dismiss in any way. 

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 6, 2015

Case 3:12-cv-00492-GPC-JLB Document 306 Filed 11/06/15 Page 4 of 4