Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00065/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00065-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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- 07cv65-WQH-JMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAM BEDWELL, SUZANNE M.

MORENO, and JONATHON SIMON,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 07cv65-WQH-JMA

ORDER

vs.

FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C., CARL E.

MANNING, and MARTHA HUFFMAN,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge: 

The matters before the Court are the Motion for Voluntary Dismissal, filed by Plaintiff

Suzanne M. Moreno (Doc. # 104); the Order to Show Cause why this case should not be closed

(Doc. # 118); and the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to this Court that Section III.A. of

Plaintiff’s “Reply to Defendants’ Response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause” (Doc. # 122

at 6-7) be permanently stricken from the Court record (Doc. # 126).

BACKGROUND

On January 16, 2009, Plaintiff Suzanne M. Moreno, the sole remaining Plaintiff in this

action (“Plaintiff”), filed a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of this action without prejudice.

(Doc. # 104).

On March 30, 2009, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order awarding Defendants the sum

of $5,173.62 as sanctions for Plaintiff’s failure to appear for her deposition. (Doc. # 108). On

April 3, 2009, Plaintiff sent a letter to the Magistrate Judge requesting reconsideration of this

Case 3:07-cv-00065-WQH-JMA Document 128 Filed 10/16/09 Page 1 of 6
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

-2- 07cv65-WQH-JMA

Order, based on her inability to pay the $5,713.62 to Defendants by April 30, 2009 as ordered

by the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. # 109 at 1). On April 17, 2009, the Magistrate Judge issued

an Order which (1) reaffirmed the sanctions award, (2) stayed the deadline for Plaintiff to pay

the sanctions, (3) ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding appropriate accommodations

for payment of the award in light of Plaintiff’s financial condition, and (4) ordered the parties

to provide a joint written statement to the Magistrate Judge regarding the status of their

discussions by no later than May 1, 2009. (Doc. # 109 at 2).

On April 29, 2009, this Court issued an Order addressing the Motion for Voluntary

Dismissal. (Doc. # 110). The Court concluded:

This case has been vigorously litigated on both sides and has been

pending for over two years. The discovery deadline has passed, and final

pretrial preparations have commenced. The Court concludes that dismissal

without prejudice at this late stage in the proceedings would only be proper if

conditioned upon Plaintiff’s payment of $3,400.00 to Defendants. This amount

represents the attorneys’ fees incurred by Defendants in opposing Plaintiff’s

motion to transfer venue, which cannot be used in any future litigation of

Plaintiff’s claims. Defendants have not met their burden to demonstrate that the

remainder of the attorneys’ fees requested would not be useful in future

litigation of Plaintiff’s claims. If Plaintiff accepts this condition, the Court will dismiss this case in its

entirety without prejudice on the condition that Plaintiff pay $3,400.00 to

Defendants. If Plaintiff considers payment of $3,400.00 to Defendants to be too

burdensome a condition, Plaintiff may withdraw her motion for dismissal and

proceed with this case on the merits.

(Doc. # 110 at 6-7).

On April 29, 2009, Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Sanctions Order and the

Magistrate Judge’s April 17, 2009 Order, arguing that the Magistrate Judge’s imposition of

sanctions was clearly erroneous and contrary to law. (Doc. # 111).

On May 22, 2009, Plaintiff filed “Notice of Acceptance of and Request for Ruling,”

wherein she stated:

Pursuant to this Court’s order dated April 29, 2009, Plaintiff, Suzanne M.

Moreno hereby gives notice of her acceptance of the condition of payment of

$3400.00 to Defendants for the attorneys’ fees incurred by Defendants in

opposing Plaintiff’s motion to transfer venue.

Wherefore, Plaintiff ... respectfully requests that this Court issue a ruling

on her Objection to Sanctions Order of Magistrate Judge..., filed on April 29,

2009.

Case 3:07-cv-00065-WQH-JMA Document 128 Filed 10/16/09 Page 2 of 6
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- 07cv65-WQH-JMA

(Doc. # 114 at 1).

On June 22, 2009, this Court issued an Order overruling Plaintiff’s objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s sanctions order. (Doc. # 116). The Court also stated:

[T]he Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal (Doc. # 104),

with the condition that Plaintiff pay Defendants $3400.00 for the attorneys’ fees

incurred by Defendants in opposing Plaintiff’s motion to transfer venue.

However, the Court will delay dismissal of this case so that it may retain

jurisdiction for the limited purpose of allowing the Magistrate Judge to resolve

the issue of the Rule 37 sanctions award, which is currently stayed. (Doc. #

109). Ten days after the Magistrate Judge issues a written decision finally

resolving the matter of the sanctions award, the Court will issue an order

dismissing this action.

(Doc. # 116 at 9-10).

On July 31, 2009, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause why this case should not

be closed. (Doc. # 118).

On August 11, 2009, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order reaffirming the $5,173.62

sanctions award. (Doc. # 119). The Magistrate Judge stated:

2. [The Magistrate Judge] APPROVES the parties’ proposed payment plan which requires Plaintiff to pay Defendants the amount of $400 at the end

of each month until the sanctions award is paid in full. The Court’s approval of

the parties’ proposed payment plan is conditioned upon Plaintiff providing the

following information to Defendants to substantiate her claimed financial

condition by no later than August 27, 2009: (1) the final statements and closure

letters from the institutions holding Plaintiff’s closed bank accounts showing

when and why the accounts were closed, and the amount of funds in those

accounts when closed; (2) the names of any person or entity Plaintiff has worked

for in the last three months and all pay stubs/compensation statements issued to

Plaintiff by all employers/agencies in the last three months; (3) the agreement

with the entity Plaintiff was to begin work for on July 13, 2009; and (4) a sworn

statement, signed under penalty of perjury, certifying the truth of the

representations Plaintiff has made concerning her financial condition. Plaintiff

shall also notify defense counsel of any change in her financial condition during

the period in which she is paying the sanctions award.

3. If Plaintiff does not provide all of the ... information set forth above,

the sanctions must be paid in full to Defendants by no later than September 28,

2009.

(Doc. # 119 at 2-3 (citation and footnotes omitted) (emphasis omitted)).

On August 28, 2009, Defendants filed a response to this Court’s July 31, 2009 Order

to Show Cause. (Doc. # 120). Defendants stated:

Plaintiff’s time for providing the documents and sworn statement as

ordered by Magistrate Judge Adler has expired. As of the date this Response

was filed, Defendants have not received any evidence of Plaintiff’s financial

Case 3:07-cv-00065-WQH-JMA Document 128 Filed 10/16/09 Page 3 of 6
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

-4- 07cv65-WQH-JMA

condition as ordered. Accordingly, Plaintiff must now pay the full sanctions

award of $5,173.62 to Defendants no later than September 28, 2009. As of the

date this Response was filed, Plaintiff has also not paid Defendants the $3,400

upon which this Court conditioned any dismissal without prejudice.

.... Defendants respectfully request this Court issue an order directing Plaintiff to pay the full sanctions award ($5,173.62) by September 28, 2009, and

the $3,400 fees awarded to Defendants in this Court’s April 29 and June 22,

2009 orders no later than October 1, 2009. Only if Defendants receive both of

these payments by the dates ordered should this case be dismissed without

prejudice. Otherwise, this Court should dismiss this case in its entirety with

prejudice.

(Doc. # 120 at 3 (emphasis in original)).

On September 8, 2009, Plaintiff submitted a “Reply to Defendants’ Response to the

Court’s Order to Show Cause,” stating that “[w]hile Plaintiff has accepted the condition to pay

Defendants the $3400.00 from this Court’s April 29, 2009 Order, nothing has been stated as

to the ‘how and when’ of the payment.” (Doc. # 122 at 5). Plaintiff concludes:

Plaintiff has not acted in bad faith or done anything to merit a dismissal

sanction with prejudice [as] requested by Defendants. ... Since January 13,

2009, Plaintiff has sought a Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice from this

Court in hopes of ending this arduous litigation. Plaintiff asks this Court again

to close this litigation by granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal

Without Prejudice and asks that each side bear its own attorneys fees and costs.

(Doc. # 122, at 7).

On September 17, 2009, the Magistrate Judge issued an an Order to Show Cause why

sanctions should not be imposed against Plaintiff and why Section III.A. of Plaintiff’s “Reply

to Defendants’ Response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause” should not be stricken. (Doc.

# 123). The Magistrate Judge stated:

On July 16, 2009, the undersigned initiated a telephone call to Ms.

Moreno to discuss a potential settlement of this action. The undersigned

expressly informed Ms. Moreno at the beginning of the call that the Court

intended to conduct settlement discussions that were to remain confidential and

that the content of the discussions was not to appear in any future court filings.

Ms. Moreno expressed her understanding of the Court’s admonition. Despite

the fact that Ms. Moreno was amply notified of the confidentiality of the

discussions, and her acknowledgment that she was not to disclose them in any

court filing, she went on to specifically set forth the nature and content of the

July 16, 2009 settlement discussions in Section III. A of her Reply to

Defendants’ Response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, filed on September

8, 2009.

Accordingly, Plaintiff Suzanne Moreno is hereby ordered to show cause

why sanctions should not be imposed against her for failing to comply with the

Court’s express verbal order that the settlement discussions held on July 16,

Case 3:07-cv-00065-WQH-JMA Document 128 Filed 10/16/09 Page 4 of 6
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

-5- 07cv65-WQH-JMA

2009 were to remain confidential and that the content of the discussions was not

to appear in any court filing.

(Doc. # 123 at 1-2).

On September 28, 2009, Plaintiff filed a response to the September 17, 2009 Order to

Show Cause. (Doc. # 125). 

On October 5, 2009, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order declining to impose

additional monetary sanctions upon Plaintiff but recommending to this Court that Section

III.A. of Plaintiff’s “Reply to Defendants’ Response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause”

(Doc. # 122 at 6) be permanently stricken from the Court record. (Doc. # 126).

On October 7, 2009, Defendants filed a Notice stating that, as of October 7, 2009,

Defendants had not received payment of the $5,173.62 sanction award nor had Defendants

received payment of the $3,400 upon which this Court conditioned dismissal without

prejudice. (Doc. # 127).

DISCUSSION

Under Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “an action may be

dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on terms that the court considers

proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). “A district court should grant a motion for voluntary

dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless a defendant can show that it will suffer some plain legal

prejudice as a result.” Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001). “The defendants’

interests can be protected by conditioning the dismissal without prejudice upon the payment

of appropriate costs and attorney fees.” Westlands Water Dist. v. U.S., 100 F.3d 94, 96 (9th

Cir. 1996). A defendant is only entitled to recover “attorneys’ fees or costs for work which

is not useful in continuing litigation between the parties.” Koch v. Hankins, 8 F.3d 650, 652

(9th Cir. 1993). “When a plaintiff accepts a voluntary dismissal with conditions, does not

attempt to withdraw the motion for dismissal, and yet refuses to comply with the conditions,

it would ... be proper to convert the dismissal from one without prejudice to one with

prejudice.” Lau v. Glendora Unified Sch. Dist., 792 F.2d 929, 930 n.2 (9th Cir. 1986)

(citations omitted).

The Court hereby modifies the condition upon which the Court will grant Plaintiff’s

Case 3:07-cv-00065-WQH-JMA Document 128 Filed 10/16/09 Page 5 of 6
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

 The Court finds that $5,173.62—i.e., the expenses caused by Plaintiff’s failure to

appear at her deposition—constitute “attorneys’ fees or costs for work which is not useful in

continuing litigation between the parties.” Koch, 8 F.3d at 652.

-6- 07cv65-WQH-JMA

Motion for Voluntary Dismissal. As a condition of voluntary dismissal without prejudice,

Plaintiff must pay, no later than October 30, 2009, $3,400.00 and $5,173.62 to Defendants.1

If, no later than October 30, 2009, Plaintiff files proof that these payments have been timely

made, this action will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(a)(2). If Plaintiff fails to timely file proof of payment, this action will be

dismissed with prejudice and Plaintiff will not be obligated to pay either the $3,400 or the

$5,173.62. See Lau, 792 F.2d at 930 n.2.

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, as a condition of voluntary dismissal without

prejudice, Plaintiff shall pay, no later than October 30, 2009, $3,400.00 and $5,173.62 to

Defendants. If, no later than October 30, 2009, Plaintiff files proof that these payments have

been timely made, this action will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). If Plaintiff fails to timely file proof of payment, this action will be

dismissed with prejudice and Plaintiff will not be obligated to pay either the $3,400 or the

$5,173.62.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Section III.A. of Plaintiff’s “Reply to Defendants’

Response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause” (Doc. # 122 at 6) is stricken from the Court

record.

DATED: October 16, 2009

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00065-WQH-JMA Document 128 Filed 10/16/09 Page 6 of 6