Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02676/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02676-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Injunctive &amp; Declaratory Relief

---

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JEFFREY BAKER, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 15-cv-02676-JSW 

ORDER ADMONISHING COUNSEL 

AND DISCHARGING ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE WITHOUT IMPOSING 

MONETARY SANCTIONS 

This case came before the Court for a case management conference on December 11, 2015, 

at 11:00 a.m. Lead counsel for Defendants in this matter failed to appear. Alternate counsel, who 

had not filed a notice of appearance, appeared on behalf of Defendants. Counsel did not seek 

leave from this Court for alternate counsel to appear in lead counsel’s place. Alternate counsel 

stated that he had been hired through a website called weappear.com. Alternate counsel was not 

prepared with regard to either the case itself or lead counsel’s schedule. Indeed, alternate counsel 

had not spoken directly with counsel of record regarding this case and was not even aware of 

which party he was to represent. 

This Court’s Civil Local Rules provide as follows: 

Unless excused by the Judge, lead trial counsel for each party must 

attend the initial Case Management Conference. Requests to 

participate in the conference by telephone must be filed and served 

at least 7 days before the conference or in accordance with the 

Standing Orders of the assigned Judge. 

N.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 16-10(a). 

Additionally, this Court’s Order Setting Case Management Conference in this case 

provided: 

The parties shall appear in person through lead counsel to discuss all 

Case 4:15-cv-02676-JSW Document 63 Filed 01/15/16 Page 1 of 5
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 Californi

a

items referred to in this Order and with authority to enter 

stipulations, to make admissions and to agree to further scheduling 

dates. 

(Dkt. No. 11.) 

On December 10, 2015 at 10:33 a.m., Defendants filed a motion for leave for Defendants’ 

counsel Ryan K. Woodson, Esq., to appear telephonically at the case management conference the 

following day. The motion was untimely filed and provided no showing of good cause, only a 

boilerplate assertion that it would be unduly burdensome and costly for Defendants’ counsel to 

travel from Irvine, California to Oakland for the conference. The Court denied this motion by 

order filed on December 10, 2015 at 11:46 a.m. The Order Denying Defendants’ Motion to 

Appear Telephonically at Case Management Conference reiterated: 

As set forth in the order setting the case management conference, all 

parties must appear in person through lead counsel with authority 

to enter into stipulations, to make admissions, and to agree to further 

scheduling dates. 

(Dkt. No. 50 (emphasis in original).) 

On December 14, 2015, the Court issued an order to show cause why Mr. Woodson should 

not be sanctioned in the amount of $2,500.00 for violation of this Court’s rules and orders. On 

December 24, 2015, Defendants timely filed a response to the December 14, 2015 order to show 

cause, signed and e-filed by Mr. Woodson. On January 7, 2016, Mr. Woodson filed a 

supplemental declaration in response to the order to show cause, in which he asserted that John C. 

Steele, Esq., was his “boss, named Partner, and the Managing Director of Litigation at” the Law 

Offices of Les Zieve, and that Mr. Steele, who is also counsel of record in this case, “is admittedly 

the lead trial counsel for Defendants so he had the legal obligation and professional responsibility 

to personally appear at the CMC pursuant to Local Rule 16-10(a) and the CMC Court Order.” 

(Dkt. No. 57, ¶ 2.) Mr. Woodson further asserted that after he requested that Mr. Steele take the 

responsibility of responding to this Court’s order to show cause, the Law Offices of Les Zieve 

suspended Mr. Woodson without pay. (Id., ¶¶ 17-18.) On January 11, 2016, Mr. Steele filed a 

separate supplemental declaration in response to the order to show cause and in response to Mr. 

Woodson’s supplemental declaration. On January 12, 2016, Mr. Woodson filed a second 

Case 4:15-cv-02676-JSW Document 63 Filed 01/15/16 Page 2 of 5
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 Californi

a

supplemental declaration. Both of Mr. Woodson’s supplemental declarations are captioned with 

his own name and address only, and do not purport to represent the position of Defendants or of 

the Law Offices of Les Zieve. 

The responses to the order to show cause make clear that a personnel dispute has arisen 

within the Law Offices of Les Zieve in connection with this matter, in which the Court declines to 

involve itself. The Court addresses only the failure of counsel to abide by this Court’s rules and 

orders. 

District courts have the inherent power to sanction a lawyer for a full range of litigation 

abuses, as well as the power to sanction attorneys for violation of court rules. Chambers v. 

NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 55 (1991); Evon v. Law Offices of Sidney Mickell, 688 F.3d 1015, 1035 

(9th Cir. 2012). Because the scope of the sanctioning power is so broad, the Court must “exercise 

caution in invoking its inherent power, and it must comply with the mandates of due process.” 

Chambers, 501 U.S. at 49. The Court may sanction counsel for a willful violation of a court order. 

Evon, 688 F.3d at 1035. Such a sanction “does not require proof of mental intent such as bad faith 

or an improper motive, but rather, it is enough that a party acted deliberately.” Id. To satisfy due 

process, the Court must ensure that the sanctioned party has notice of the challenged misconduct 

and an opportunity to respond to the charges. In re Deville, 361 F.3d 539, 548-50 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Subject to these safeguards, the court may “fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct which 

abuses the judicial process.” Chambers, 361 U.S. at 44-45. 

The Court is mindful that the December 14, 2015 order to show cause was directed only to 

Mr. Woodson. However, Mr. Steele was served with the order, was involved in crafting the initial 

response to the order, and subsequently filed his own supplemental declaration in response to the 

order, specifically responding to Mr. Woodson’s assertions that Mr. Steele bore the responsibility 

for the violations set forth in the order. Accordingly, the Court finds that Mr. Steele had adequate 

notice and opportunity to respond regarding the issues set forth in the order to show cause, and 

due process does not prevent the Court from addressing his conduct in this order. 

Upon review of all of the responses, declarations, and documents that have been submitted, 

the Court finds that John C. Steele, Esq. and Ryan K. Woodson, Esq., Defendants’ two attorneys 

Case 4:15-cv-02676-JSW Document 63 Filed 01/15/16 Page 3 of 5
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 Californi

a

of record at the Law Offices of Les Zieve, willfully and recklessly failed to read any of the rules or 

orders listed above. As a result of this disregard for the rules and orders of this Court, counsel for 

Defendants did not become aware of the requirement that lead trial counsel attend the initial case 

management conference, and may not even have made an internal decision who at the firm would 

be lead trial counsel. It appears that Mr. Woodson, an associate attorney, was primarily 

responsible for the management of this case, at least at the pretrial stage, at the time of the case 

management conference. As the Managing Director of Litigation and the senior attorney of record 

on this case, Mr. Steele was Mr. Woodson’s supervisor but declares that he did not, in fact, 

oversee the conduct of this case. Mr. Woodson, an experienced attorney, was given a great deal of 

independence, although Mr. Steele was copied on Mr. Woodson’s emails regarding the request for 

telephonic appearance and the hiring of appearance counsel. 

Neither attorney appears willing to accept responsibility for this case as of the time of the 

case management conference. This lack of accountability, combined with the failure of either 

attorney of record to read this Court’s rules and orders, resulted in the failure any counsel of 

record for Defendants, much less lead counsel, to appear at the case management conference, and 

in the appearance of wholly unprepared alternate counsel. This conduct was unprofessional and 

disrespectful, and hindered the Court’s ability to conduct a case management conference. 

Furthermore, in their responses to the order to show cause, these attorneys have displayed an 

unseemly eagerness to cast blame at each other, and avoid responsibility themselves, that is nearly 

as unprofessional as the underlying violations. 

The Court ADMONISHES both attorneys of record, Mr. Steele and Mr. Woodson, for the 

failure to read the relevant rules and orders, for failure to ensure that lead trial counsel appeared at 

the initial case management conference, and for failure even to provide appearance counsel with 

basic information about the case such as which party he was to represent. 

Nonetheless, the Court DISCHARGES the December 14, 2015 order to show cause 

without imposing monetary sanctions, in the exercise of discretion. The Court declines to expend 

further judicial resources in pursuing this matter at this time. 

The Court cautions counsel that further failure to read and abide by the rules and orders of 

Case 4:15-cv-02676-JSW Document 63 Filed 01/15/16 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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

De

sub

Da

s Court—ev

The Co

efendants in t

bstitution of 

IT IS S

ated: January

en the slight

ourt further r

this matter, c

counsel. 

SO ORDER

y 15, 2016 

test violation

eminds coun

counsel shou

RED. 

5

n—shall be t

nsel that if an

uld comply w

treated with 

ny attorney o

with this Cou

__

JE

Un

the utmost s

of record ce

urt’s rules re

___________

EFFREY S. W

nited States D

severity. 

ases to repre

egarding wit

__________

WHITE 

District Judg

esent 

thdrawal or 

____ 

ge 

Case 4:15-cv-02676-JSW Document 63 Filed 01/15/16 Page 5 of 5