Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03825/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03825-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Susan Adams
Defendant
Judy Arnold
Defendant
Board of Supervisors
Defendant
Liz Clark
Defendant
County Supervisors
Defendant
County of Marin
Defendant
Roy Given
Defendant
Steven Kinsey
Defendant
Katie Rice
Defendant
Kathrin Sears
Defendant
Tadeusz Wyrzykowski
Plaintiff

Document Text:

ORDER (No. 3:14-cv-03825-LB) 

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 

San Francisco Division 

TADEUSZ WYRZYKOWSKI,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COUNTY OF MARIN, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 3:14-cv-03825-LB 

ORDER DENYING THE PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 

[Re: ECF No. 71] 

Tadeusz Wyrzykowski, who is proceeding pro se, sued ten defendants in his Second Amended 

Complaint: (1) the County of Marin; (2) the County of Marin Board of Supervisors; (3) County 

Supervisors; (4) former District 1 Supervisor Susan Adams; (5) current District 5 Supervisor Judy 

Arnold; (6) current District 4 Supervisor Steven Kinsey; (7) current District 2 Supervisor Katie 

Rice; (8) current District 3 Supervisor Kathrin Sears; (9) Roy Given; and (10) Liz Clark. (Second 

Amended Complaint, ECF No. 44.) The court dismissed the County Supervisors because it is 

duplicative of the County of Marin Board of Supervisors; thus, nine defendants remained. 

(5/12/2015 Order, ECF No. 52 at 2.) In his Second Amended Complaint, Mr. Wyrzykowski 

brought the following eleven claims: (1) violation of his Fourteenth Amendment procedural due 

process rights (against all defendants except the County of Marin); (2) violation of his Fourteenth 

Amendment right to equal protection under the law (against the County of Marin and the Board of 

Supervisors); (3) municipal liability under Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 

Case 3:14-cv-03825-LB Document 75 Filed 09/01/15 Page 1 of 4
2 

ORDER (No. 3:14-cv-03825-LB) 

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 

U.S. 658 (1978) and City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) (against the County of 

Marin and the Board of Supervisors); (4) supervisory liability under Monell (against Ms. Adams, 

Arnold, Kinsey, Rice, and Sears and Mr. Given); (5) violation of California’s Bane Act, Cal. Civ. 

Code § 52.1 (against all defendants except the County of Marin); (6) “theft of honest services, 

abuse of power, and color of law” (against all defendants except the County of Marin); (7) fraud 

(against all defendants); (8) violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act 

(“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1964, based on predicate crimes of mail and wire fraud (against all 

defendants); (9) violation of RICO, based on predicate crimes of embezzlement and extortion 

(against all defendants except the County of Marin); (10) intentional infliction of emotional 

distress (against all defendants except the County of Marin); and (11) loss of consortium (against 

all defendants except the County of Marin). (Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 44, ¶¶ 97-

230.) 

On June 9, 2015, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss Mr. Wyrzykowski’s 

Second Amended Complaint. (6/9/2015 Order, ECF No. 66.) The court dismissed without 

prejudice his first, second, third, fourth, and fifth claims and dismissed with prejudice his sixth, 

seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh claims. (Id. at 12-23.) The court also gave him leave to 

amend his first, second, third, fourth, and fifth claims in a third amended complaint filed by 

August 7, 2015. (Id. at 23.) 

On June 23, 2015, Mr. Wyrzykowski filed a document titled “Request to Amend Complaint.” 

(Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 67.) In it, Mr. Wyrzykowski said that he did “not feel that 

justice has been served” and asked the court to allow him to amend his sixth, seventh, eighth, 

ninth, tenth, and eleventh claims, too. (Id. at 1.) He also said he wanted to name new defendants. 

(Id. at 2, 3.) The court treated his filing as a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration 

and denied it on July 16, 2015. (7/16/2015 Order, ECF No. 70.) In its order, the court reiterated 

that Mr. Wyrzykowski may file a third amended complaint by August 7, 2015 to amend his first, 

second, third, fourth, and fifth claims but that he may not name new defendants in it. (Id. at 4.) 

Mr. Wyrzykowski did not file a third amended complaint. Instead, on August 6, 2015, he filed 

a motion asking the court to sanction the defendants’ counsel under Federal Rule of Civil 

Case 3:14-cv-03825-LB Document 75 Filed 09/01/15 Page 2 of 4
3 

ORDER (No. 3:14-cv-03825-LB) 

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 

Procedure 11 and to enter the defendants’ default. (Motion for Sanctions, ECF No. 71.) Rule 11 

provides in pertinent part: 

(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written 

motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating 

it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s 

knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the 

circumstances: 

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause 

unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; 

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing 

law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing 

existing law or for establishing new law; 

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so 

identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for 

further investigation or discovery; and 

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if 

specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of 

information. 

(c) Sanctions. 

(1) In General. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court 

determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an 

appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or 

is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm 

must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, 

associate, or employee. 

. . . . 

In applying this rule, the Ninth Circuit “has identified two circumstances in which sanctions 

[under Rule 11] are appropriate: [(1)] where a litigant makes a ‘frivolous filing,’ that is, where he 

files a pleading or other paper which no competent attorney could believe was well grounded in 

fact and warranted by law; and [(2)] where a litigant files a pleading or other paper for an 

‘improper purpose,’ such as personal or economic harassment.” Greenberg v. Sala, 822 F.2d 882, 

885 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Golden Eagle Distributing Corp. v. Burroughs Corp., 801 F.2d 1531, 

1538 (9th Cir. 1986) and Zaldivar v. City of Los Angeles, 780 F.2d 823, 830-32 (9th Cir. 1986)); 

see Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 929 F.2d 1358, 1362 (9th Cir. 1990). 

The defendants’ counsel has done neither. As he did in his complaints and in his opposition to 

the defendants’ motion to dismiss, Mr. Wyrzykowski argues that the defendants’ counsel has 

Case 3:14-cv-03825-LB Document 75 Filed 09/01/15 Page 3 of 4
4 

ORDER (No. 3:14-cv-03825-LB) 

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 

committed a fraud upon the court, and he says that the court wrongly dismissed his Second 

Amended Complaint as a result. (See generally Motion for Sanctions, ECF No. 71.) Mr. 

Wyrzykowski essentially objects to the defendants’ characterization of his case and their legal 

arguments. But as the defendants’ point out in their opposition, a disagreement of this sort does 

not support sanctions under Rule 11. The defendants’ counsel has not made any frivolous filings—

in fact, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss—nor has she filed any documents for 

an improper purpose. The court denies Mr. Wyrzykowski’s motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 1, 2015 

______________________________________ 

LAUREL BEELER 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:14-cv-03825-LB Document 75 Filed 09/01/15 Page 4 of 4