Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00564/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00564-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 448
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights - Education
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

Anyssa Sanchez,

Plaintiff,

v.

Brawley Elementary School District et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.14cv564 GPC (PCL)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION

FOR SANCTIONS

(Doc. 20.) 

Defendant Brawley Elementary School District filed a motion requesting that the Court issue an

order that Plaintiff’s attorney pay Defendant a monetary sanction for failing to appear at the Mandatory

Settlement Conference scheduled for the morning of November 17, 2015. (Doc. 20.) 

I. BACKGROUND

On November 16, 2016, defense counsel, Martin L. Carpenter, traveled from downtown Los

Angeles to El Centro in order to attend the Mandatory Settlement Conference scheduled for the morning

of November 17, 2015. The drive from Los Angeles to El Centro took 3.8 hours and encompassed 214

miles. On November 17, 2015, Mr. Carpenter arrived at the U.S. District Court in El Centro at 9:30 a.m.

and met with the claims adjustor from Carl Warren & Company, Rose Nuno, in preparation for the

MSC. At around 10:00 a.m., Rose Nuno and Mr. Carpenter appeared in Magistrate Lewis’ chambers and

waited for Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s guardian ad litem, and Plaintiff’s counsel, David Miller, to arrive. Ms.

Nuno and Mr. Carpenter appeared with the purpose to engage in settlement discussions and negotiations

1

Case 3:14-cv-00564-GPC-PCL Document 60 Filed 06/01/16 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

in a good faith effort to reach an amicable resolution to the case. Ms. Nuno and Mr. Carpenter remained

in chambers until 11:45 a.m.; however, there was no appearance by Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s guardian ad

litem, or Plaintiff’s attorney. Additionally, there was no communication by or on behalf of Plaintiff

giving notice that no appearance was going to be made or providing an explanation for their nonappearance at the court-ordered MSC. 

 In total, the claim’s adjustor and Mr. Carpenter spent a total of 2.5 hours at the courthouse. Due

to the afternoon traffic the trip back to Los Angeles took defense counsel a total of 4.3 hours to travel

the 214 miles. The total hours for travel and appearing at the MSC were 10.6 hours and a total of 428

miles. Defense counsel calculated the total mileage cost to be $243.96 based on the IRS guidelines of

$.57 per mile. (Doc. 20, at 4-5.) Defense counsel also estimated that total attorney’s fees for the MSC is

$3,700.00. All of this was charged to the Brawley Elementary School. As for the insurance adjustor’s

fees, defense counsel stated that Brawley Elementary School was charged $644.20 for the adjustor’s

time and travel expenses (7.5 hours of time at $56.00 per hour and 380 miles at $.59 per mile.) 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(a) provides that a court may direct the attorneys in an action

to appear before it for a conference before trial. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(a)(5) specifically

states that one of the purposes of such conferences may be “facilitating the settlement of the case.”

Further, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 16(f) provides that if a party’s attorney fails to appear,

the court may make such orders as are just, including requiring the attorney to pay the reasonable

expenses incurred because of his noncompliance, unless the noncompliance was substantially justified.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f).

The Ninth Circuit has held that the purpose of Rule 16 is “to encourage forceful judicial

management.” Sherman v. U.S., 801 F.2d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)

Advisory Committee’s note (“[E]xplicit reference to sanctions reinforces the rule’s intention to

encourage forceful judicial management.”). Violations of Rule 16 are neither technical nor trivial. See

Martin Family Trust v. Heco-Nostalgia Enterprises, Co., 186 F.R.D. 601, 603 (E.D. Cal. 1999). Rule 16

is critical to the court’s management of its docket and avoids unnecessary delays in adjudicating the

court’s cases. Id. Whether the party and/or its counsel disobeyed the court order intentionally is

2

Case 3:14-cv-00564-GPC-PCL Document 60 Filed 06/01/16 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

impertinent; sanctions may be imposed when the parties and their counsel disobey a court order. See

Lucas Auto. Egn’g, Inc., v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 275 F.3d 762, 769 (9th Cir. 2001). 

III. DISCUSSION

In the instant case, the CMC Order contained an explicit warning of sanctions for failure to

appear: “failure to attend the conference or obtain a proper excuse will be considered grounds for

sanctions.” (Doc. 17.) Despite the warning, the attorney for the Plaintiff, David Miller, failed to appear

at the Mandatory Settlement Conference along with the Plaintiff and failed to provide proper justification for their absence. While the Court might have accepted the excuse that Mr. Miller provided in his

opposition to the motion for sanctions, Mr. Miller’s unannounced absence was not an isolated incident;

it took the Court several months to set up the Case Management Conference because Mr. Miller was

unreachable and he failed to prosecute his case for several months. This pattern of careless behavior will

not be tolerated in federal court and should be penalized. As such, imposition of sanctions is proper

under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(f). The Court orders attorney David Miller, Cal. Bar No.

140805, to reimburse Defendant Brawley Elementary School District $500.00 to cover the travel

expenses of Defendant attorney and the claim’s adjustor who did appear for the Mandatory Settlement

Conference in November 2015. The Court will not impose the other monetary sanction for fees that

Defendant has requested. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: June 1, 2016 

______________________________

PETER C. LEWIS

United States Magistrate Judge

Copy to: The Honorable Curiel

All Parties and Counsel of Record

3

Case 3:14-cv-00564-GPC-PCL Document 60 Filed 06/01/16 Page 3 of 3