Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00521/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00521-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Angelique Ashby
Defendant
City of Sacramento
Defendant
Sarah R. Novo
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SARAH R. NOVO,

NO. CIV. S-13-0521 LKK/AC

Plaintiff,

v.

O R D E R

CITY OF SACRAMENTO,

ANGELIQUE ASHBY,

Defendants.

 /

Defendant Angelique Ashby’s Motion to Strike, ECF No. 16, is

pending before the court. Defendant “moves to strike any reference

to the CFRA [California Family Rights Act] in the Fourth Claim for

Relief as it pertains to her because she is not an ‘employer’ as

that term is defined within the CFRA.” Def’s Mot., ECF No. 16,

Att. 1, at 3. 

On July 19, 2013, this court ordered counsel for Plaintiff to

show cause in writing as to why sanctions should not issue, in

accordance with Eastern District of California Local Rule 110

(2013), for counsel’s failure to file an opposition or a statement

of non-opposition to Defendant’s motion. 

1

Case 2:13-cv-00521-MCE-AC Document 22 Filed 07/30/13 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

On July 25, 2013, Plaintiff filed a statement of nonopposition to the granting of Defendant’s motion to strike. Pl’s

Resp., ECF No. 20. Plaintiff does not object to Defendant’s motion

to strike Plaintiff’s Fourth Claim for Relief for Defendant Ashby’s

“retaliation against the plaintiff for requesting CFRA leave,” but

notes that “Plaintiff’s claim against Ashby for retaliation under

FMLA [Family Medical Leave Act] remains within the Amended

Complaint, Fourth Claim for Relief.” Id. at 1. 

In response to the court’s order to show cause, Plaintiff’s

counsel admitted that he was at fault for “fail[ing] to calendar

this motion,” which “result[ed] in this unfortunate circumstance

for the Court.” Pl’s Resp., ECF No. 21, at 1-2. 

Accordingly, the court ORDERS as follows:

[1] Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s Fourth Claim

for Relief, ECF No. 16, is GRANTED, only insofar as it

presents a retaliation claim against Defendant Ashby

pursuant to the CFRA. 

[2] The hearing on Defendant’s motion to strike, currently

set for August 12, 2013, is VACATED. 

[3] Plaintiff’s counsel is SANCTIONED in the amount of one

hundred and fifty dollars ($150). This sum shall be

paid to the Clerk of the Court no later than thirty (30)

days from the date of this order. 

[4] Counsel for Plaintiff SHALL file an affidavit

accompanying the payment of this sanctions which states

that it is paid personally by counsel, out of personal

2

Case 2:13-cv-00521-MCE-AC Document 22 Filed 07/30/13 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

funds, and is not and will not be billed, directly or

indirectly, to the client or any way made the

responsibility of the client as attorneys’ fees or

costs. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 29, 2013.

3

Case 2:13-cv-00521-MCE-AC Document 22 Filed 07/30/13 Page 3 of 3