Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02488/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02488-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

JORITA ADANANDUS,

Plaintiff, No. C-05-02488 EDL

v. ORDER DENYING AS MOOT

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AND

DENYING REQUEST FOR

SANCTIONS

SAFWAY SCAFFOLDING 

COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement. Because this matter is

appropriate for decision without oral argument, the Court vacated the March 21, 2006 hearing. 

On January 31, 2006, the parties settled this employment discrimination lawsuit through

mediation. Under the settlement agreement, Defendant was obligated to pay a certain amount of

money to Plaintiff no later than February 6, 2006. Shukla Decl. ¶ 7. On February 2, 2006,

Defendant learned from an article in the Contra Costa Times on the Internet that Plaintiff had been

recently arrested for allegedly slashing her then-boyfriend’s throat. Brooks Decl. Ex. A. Defendant

subsequently told Plaintiff that it believed that the settlement agreement was void because during

Plaintiff’s deposition on January 30, 2006, she denied any knowledge that her recent arrest involved

a claim that she committed a battery or similar physically offensive conduct against her thenboyfriend. Oborne Decl. Ex. A at 28:2-5 (“Q: Do you know if there was any allegation against you

that you engaged in physical conduct with Bonnie, in terms of battery or an offensive conduct? A:

Case 3:05-cv-02488-EDL Document 42 Filed 03/21/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Plaintiff also filed objections to the evidence submitted by Defendant in opposition to

Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff objects to Exhibit A to the Brooks declaration and to the portions of

Defendant’s brief that quote the article as hearsay. The evidence is relevant, however, not for the truth

of the statements made in the exhibit, but to show notice to Defendant. 

 Plaintiff also objects to Defendant’s brief at 3:21-26 as inadmissible hearsay. Lines 21-22

are not hearsay. Lines 23-26 state: “Sergeant Clark stated that he was present on the night that Plaintiff

was arrested and that he was confident she was told on many occasions that she was being arrested for

allegedly cutting the throat of her boyfriend. (Jordan Decl. ¶ 3). Sergeant Clark, however, said that he

was not the arresting officer and instructed us to contact arresting officer Villabos. (Jordan Decl. ¶ 3).”

Again, the evidence is not offered for the truth of the statements made by persons other than the

declarant, but for the purpose of showing notice to Defendant. 

2

No.”). After February 2, 2006, Defendant continued to refuse to pay the settlement amount while it

attempted to confirm the Contra Costa Times story and to get a declaration from the arresting

officer. Jordan Decl. ¶¶ 2-6 (detailing ten phone calls to Richmond Police Department, messages

left and telephone discussions with police officers). 

On February 13, 2006, Plaintiff filed this motion to enforce the settlement agreement, which

also included a request for $9,750.00 in attorney’s fees and $30.00 in costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1927 and the Court’s inherent power.1

 Because Defendant was unsuccessful in contacting the

arresting officer, it paid the settlement amount under the agreement on March 1, 2006. Oborne Decl.

¶ 6. Therefore, to the extent that Plaintiff’s motion sought Defendant’s compliance with the

settlement agreement, the motion is denied as moot. In addition, because the contents of the

settlement agreement are no longer at issue, the agreement will not be filed and Plaintiff’s

administrative request to file the agreement under seal is denied. Plaintiff’s counsel may arrange for

return of the sealed documents by contacting the Courtroom Deputy at 415-522-3694. 

Plaintiff also requested an award of fees and costs. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, any attorney

who “so multiplies the proceedings in any case 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.” Sanctions under section 1927 must be supported by a finding of

subjective bad faith. Trulis v. Barton, 107 F.3d 685, 694 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Bad faith is present when

an attorney knowingly or recklessly raises a frivolous argument or argues a meritorious claim for the

purpose of harassing an opponent.”). Similarly, an award of sanctions under the Court’s inherent

power requires a finding of subjective bad faith by counsel. Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32,

44 (1991).

Case 3:05-cv-02488-EDL Document 42 Filed 03/21/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

It is unfortunate that this dispute arose, but Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden of

demonstrating Defendant’s bad faith for purposes of an award of fees and costs. In light of the

Contra Costa Times article, Plaintiff’s testimony regarding her recent arrest was at a minimum

misleading, whether unintentionally or not. Defendant might not have ultimately prevailed in setting

aside the settlement agreement on a fraud in the inducement theory based on that testimony, but

Defendant had a good faith basis to pursue that theory. The issue was arguably relevant to her

emotional distress and thus the settlement value of the case. Defendant took immediate steps to

gather evidence from the arresting officer, and when that effort proved to be unsuccessful,

Defendant abandoned its investigation and paid the settlement funds approximately three and onehalf weeks from the date for payment provided in the agreement. It is regrettable that Plaintiff’s

landlord initiated eviction proceedings, but it appears that, fortunately, with counsel’s aid, Plaintiff

was not evicted as a result of Defendant’s delay in providing payment. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

request for an award of fees and costs is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 20, 2006 ___________________________

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02488-EDL Document 42 Filed 03/21/06 Page 3 of 3