Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00834/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00834-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michelle Barnett
Defendant
Barnett Insurance Agency
Defendant
Marquez J L Properties LLC
Defendant
David Mugridge
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID MUGRIDGE,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARQUEZ J L PROPERTIES LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00834-LJO-SAB

ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS

AGAINST PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY

On September 22, 2015, the Court held a show cause hearing for Plaintiff David 

Mugridge to show cause why sanctions should not be issued against him for failing to comply 

with several court orders. Plaintiff David Mugridge and his attorney, Layne Eric Hayden, 

appeared in person at the show cause hearing. For the reasons set forth below, the Court imposes 

sanctions in the amount of $200.00, payable to the Clerk of the Court, against attorney Layne 

Hayden.

I.

BACKGROUND

On June 1, 2015, the Court issued an Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling Conference 

(“the June 1 Order”). (ECF No. 3.) The June 1 Order set a scheduling conference for September 

15, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 9 (SAB) before the undersigned magistrate judge. The June 

1 Order also ordered Plaintiff to serve a copy of the June 1 Order on Defendants promptly in 

Case 1:15-cv-00834-LJO-SAB Document 17 Filed 09/22/15 Page 1 of 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

2

order to provide Defendants with notice of the scheduling conference. (See Order Setting 

Mandatory Scheduling Conference, at pg. 2:3-7.) The June 1 Order further required all parties to 

file a Joint Scheduling Report one week prior to the scheduling conference date. (See Order 

Setting Mandatory Scheduling Conference, at pg. 2:14-15.) Accordingly, the Joint Scheduling 

Report was due in this action on September 8, 2015.

No Joint Scheduling Report was filed by any party in this action. On September 11, 

2015, three days after the deadline for the Joint Scheduling Report, the Court issued an order to 

show cause why the parties should not be sanctioned for their failure to comply with the June 1 

Order (“the September 11 OSC”). (ECF No. 7.) Written responses to the Court’s order to show 

cause were due by noon on September 14, 2015.

On September 12, 2015, Defendant Marquez J L Properties LLC filed a response to the 

September 11 OSC. (ECF No. 8.) Defendants Michelle Barnett and Barnett Insurance Agency 

filed their response on September 14, 2015. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff did not file a response. 

Plaintiff did, however, file a Notice of Settlement and Request for Dismissal on September 13, 

2015. (ECF No. 9.) The Notice of Settlement contained no reference to the September 11 OSC.

On September 14, 2015, the Court issued an order discharging the September 11 OSC 

with respect to Defendants based upon their written responses (“the September 14 Order”). 

However, the September 11 OSC was not discharged with respect to Plaintiff. The Court set a 

show cause hearing for September 15, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. and ordered Plaintiff’s attorney to 

appear in person to show cause why sanctions should not be issued against him.1

On September 15, 2015, the order to show cause hearing was held by the Court. Neither 

Plaintiff nor his attorney appeared. The Court issued another show cause order setting a further 

hearing for September 22, 2015 (“the September 15 Order”). (ECF No. 13.) The Court imposed 

sanctions in the amount of $100.00 and an additional $100.00 per day for every day Plaintiff 

failed to respond to the Court’s orders.

/ / /

 

1 Although the September 15 show cause hearing was set on short notice in the September 14 order, the Court 

deliberately set the hearing for the same date, time, and place as the initial scheduling conference, which Plaintiff 

should have been planning on attending since the initial scheduling conference was never vacated.

Case 1:15-cv-00834-LJO-SAB Document 17 Filed 09/22/15 Page 2 of 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

3

Plaintiff filed a written response to the order to show cause on September 15, 2015. 

(ECF No. 14.) Mr. Hayden informed the Court that he had been working with Defendants to 

reach a settlement in this action. Mr. Hayden checked his e-mail for any communications from 

the Court, but did not see any. However, he later realized that the e-mails from the Court 

regarding all of the prior orders had been pushed back to another page in his e-mail program and 

he did not see them.

At the show cause hearing on September 22, 2015, Mr. Hayden further informed the 

Court that he did not realize that the Court’s June 1 Order required him to serve that order on 

Defendants.

II.

DISCUSSION

“Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the 

Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute 

or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. The Court possesses 

inherent authority to impose sanctions to manage its own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and 

expeditious disposition of cases. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991).

In the Court’s September 15 Order, the Court sanctioned Plaintiff in the amount of 

$100.00, payable to the Clerk of the Court. That sanction shall remain in effect.

The September 15 Order also issued additional sanctions at a rate of $100 per day for 

every day Plaintiff fails to respond to the Court’s orders to show cause. See Lasar v. Ford Motor 

Co., 399 F.3d 1101, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (discussing court’s authority to impose civil sanctions 

“intended to be remedial by coercing the defendant to do what he had refused to do.”). However, 

since Plaintiff responded to the September 15 Order on the same day, these sanctions did not 

accrue.

However, the Court will order additional sanctions in the amount of $100 to reimburse 

the Court for the time and resources expended as a direct consequence of Plaintiff’s failure to 

comply with the June 1 Order and serve the scheduling order on Defendants. The Court notes 

that Plaintiff’s failure to serve the June 1 Order on Defendants also resulted in Defendants 

Case 1:15-cv-00834-LJO-SAB Document 17 Filed 09/22/15 Page 3 of 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

4

expending time and resources responding to the Court’s order to show cause. Accordingly, the 

total amount of monetary sanctions issued by this Court against Plaintiff under both this order 

and the September 15 Order shall be $200.00. Since it is apparent that Plaintiff’s attorney, but 

not Plaintiff himself, was solely responsible for the failure to comply with the Court’s order, the 

Court will impose these sanctions solely on Plaintiff’s attorney.

III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s attorney is sanctioned in the amount of $100.00 for his failure to 

comply with the Court’s orders and failure to appear at the September 15 show 

cause hearing;

2. Plaintiff’s attorney is sanctioned in the amount of $100.00 for failing to read and 

comply with the June 1 Order by failing to serve that order on Defendants;

3. The total amount of $200.00 in sanctions shall be payable to the Clerk of the 

Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 22, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00834-LJO-SAB Document 17 Filed 09/22/15 Page 4 of 4