Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01697/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01697-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LESTER VILLATORO,

Plaintiff,

v.

ERICK SANTIAGO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:16-cv-01697-EDL (KAW)

ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS ON 

ERICK SANTIAGO FOR FAILURE TO 

APPEAR AT 10/14/16 SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE

On October 14, 2016, Defendant Erick Santiago failed to appear at the scheduled 

settlement conference, so the settlement conference could not go forward. On October 19, 2016, 

the Court issued an order to show cause to Mr. Santiago to explain why he should not pay 

monetary sanctions to reimburse Plaintiff’s counsel for the expenses incurred as a result of his 

failure to appear. Defendant did not file a response.

For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned imposes monetary sanctions on Erick 

Santiago in the amount of $1,976.50, which shall be made payable directly to Plaintiff’s counsel 

within 30 days of this order.

I. BACKGROUND

On July 14, 2016, the Court issued a notice of settlement conference, in which it scheduled 

the settlement conference before the undersigned for October 14, 2016. (Dkt. No. 19.) Defendant 

Erick Santiago was served with the notice via U.S. Mail. (7/14/16 Certificate of Service, Dkt. No. 

19-1.)

On October 14, 2016, the Court held a settlement conference at which Defendant Erick 

Santiago did not appear. (10/14/16 Minute Entry, Dkt. No. 29.) Defendant also failed to lodge a 

settlement conference statement pursuant to the undersigned’s Standing Order for Settlement 

Case 4:16-cv-01697-PJH Document 32 Filed 11/18/16 Page 1 of 4
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 California

Conferences. (Dkt. No. 28.) Defendant similarly did not respond to any of the voicemail messages 

from the undersigned’s chambers the week of the settlement conference. Id.

Also on October 14, 2016, Plaintiff’s counsel Kevin Elliott filed a declaration setting forth 

the attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in relation to the settlement conference, which totaled 

$1,976.50. (Decl. of Kevin R. Elliott, “Elliott Decl.,” Dkt. No. 30 ¶ 5.) Mr. Elliott’s billing rate is 

$295 per hour, and he spent 6.7 hours to prepare for and attend the settlement conference. (Elliott 

Decl. ¶ 6.)

On October 19, 2016, the undersigned issued an order to show cause to Mr. Santiago to 

explain, in writing, why he should not pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,976.50 to 

reimburse Plaintiff’s counsel for the time and expenses incurred as a result of his failure to appear 

at the settlement conference. (Order to Show Cause, Dkt. No. 31 at 1.) Defendant’s response was 

due by November 4, 2016. Id. The order to show cause was sent to Defendant via U.S. Mail. 

(10/19/16 Certificate of Service, Dkt. No. 31-1.) To date, no response has been filed. Defendant 

was advised that his failure to comply with the order to show cause may result in the imposition of 

sanctions. (Order to Show Cause at 2.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A court may award fees and costs caused by a party’s failure to appear at a settlement 

conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f), unless the failure was substantially 

justified or other circumstances make an award unjust. Ayers v. City of Richmond, 895 F.2d 1267, 

1270 (9th Cir. 1990). Under Rule 16(f), an award may include the payment of the reasonable fees 

and expenses incurred due to a party’s noncompliance.” Id. at 1270. Notwithstanding, the 

“[i]mposition of sanctions under Rule 16(f) requires notice and an opportunity to be heard.” Id.

(citing Ford v. Alfaro, 785 F.2d 835, 840 (9th Cir. 1986). To do otherwise is an abuse of 

discretion. Alfaro,785 F.2d at 840. 

III. DISCUSSION

A. Due Process Considerations under Rule 16(f)

The Court issued an order to show cause on October 19, 2016 to afford Defendant the 

opportunity to explain why he failed to appear at the settlement conference. Defendant did not 

Case 4:16-cv-01697-PJH Document 32 Filed 11/18/16 Page 2 of 4
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 California

respond by the November 4, 2016 deadline, nor has he filed an untimely response or otherwise 

communicated with the undersigned. Thus, Defendant received the requisite notice and an 

opportunity to be heard under Rule 16(f) when the undersigned issued an order to show cause and 

gave him a meaningful opportunity to respond. See Ayers, 895 F.2d at 1270. Accordingly, 

sanctions under Rule 16(f) are procedurally proper.

B. Attorney’s Fees Request

Mr. Elliott claims that his hourly rate is $295.00 per hour, such that $1,976.50 is 

reasonable compensation for the 6.7 hours billed in connection with the settlement conference. 

(Elliott Decl. ¶¶ 5-6.) Courts in the Ninth Circuit calculate an award of attorneys’ fees using the 

lodestar method, whereby a court multiplies “the number of hours the prevailing party reasonably 

expended on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate.” Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 

F.3d 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). 

i. Reasonableness of the Hourly Rate

A party seeking attorneys’ fees bears the burden of demonstrating that the rates requested 

are “in line with those prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably 

comparable skill, experience and reputation.” Id. at 980 (quoting Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 

895 n. 11 (1984)). The Court is aware of the prevailing rates in the community for similar 

services performed by attorneys of comparable skill, experience, and reputation, and finds that Mr. 

Elliott’s claimed hourly rate of $295.00 is reasonable. See, e.g., Recouvreur v. Carreon, 940 F. 

Supp. 2d 1063, 1070 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (finding an ordinary billing rate of $300 per hour 

reasonable for a lawyer in private practice and utilizing the Adjusted Laffey Matrix). 

ii. Reasonableness of the Hours Billed

Mr. Elliott claims to have spent 6.7 billable hours preparing for and attending the 

settlement conference. (Elliott Decl. ¶ 5.) Specifically, Mr. Elliott spent 3.7 hours preparing for 

the settlement conference by drafting the statement, preparing the damages calculation, and 

corresponding with the court. (Elliott Decl. ¶ 6.) Additionally, Mr. Elliott billed 3.0 hours 

attending the settlement conference in Oakland, which included travel time between his office in 

San Jose and the Oakland Courthouse. Id. The Court finds that the 6.7 hours billed by Mr. Elliott 

Case 4:16-cv-01697-PJH Document 32 Filed 11/18/16 Page 3 of 4
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 California

is reasonable. 

IV. CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, the Court imposes sanctions on Erick Santiago in the amount of 

$1,976.50 for failure to attend the October 14, 2016 settlement conference. The amount due shall 

be paid directly to Plaintiff’s counsel Kevin R. Elliott within 30 days of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 18, 2016

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:16-cv-01697-PJH Document 32 Filed 11/18/16 Page 4 of 4