Barajas Centeno v. City of Carlsbad

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CENTENO, Case No.: 3:19-cv-2098-L-DEB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER OVERRULING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE ORDER [ECF 153] 14 CITY OF CARLSBAD, et al. 15 Defendants. 16 Pending before the Court in this civil rights action is an objection to Magistrate 17 Judge Butcher’s order that imposed sanctions on Plaintiff’s counsel, Genaro Lara. (ECFs 18 149 and 153). The Court decides the matter without oral argument. Civ. L. R. 7.1. 19 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 72, the Court must “modify or set 20 aside any part of [a magistrate judge’s order] that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to the 21 law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; Grimes v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 240 (9th 22 Cir. 1991). 23 Judge Butcher imposed sanctions against Mr. Lara for his misconduct in this case, 24 including telling opposing counsel that their conduct was indicative of their “nature of 25 origin” and “low class.” (ECF 149). He also compared opposing counsel to a Nazi. Id. 26 27 28 1 Mr. Lara argues Judge Butcher lack jurisdiction, he did not receive adequate 2 notice, and it was improper to impose sanctions against him. (ECF 153). Mr. Lara failed 3 meet the Rule 72 standard. 4 First, Judge Butcher had the power to impose sanctions against him. Civ. L. R. 5 ||2.1(a) (“the Court may take any appropriate measure to address violations, including, 6 || without limitation, as set forth in Civ. L. R. 2.2.”); Civ. L. R. 1.1 (“‘Court’ includes the . . 7 ||. magistrate judge to whom a civil or criminal action, proceeding, case or matter has 8 || been assigned.”); Civ. L. R. 2.2(a) (“in the event any attorney engages in conduct which 9 ||may warrant discipline or other sanctions, the Court... may... [impose] [] appropriate 10 |} sanctions.”); Civ. L. R. 83.1; Zambrano v. City of Tustin, 885 F.2d 1473, 1477-78 (9th 11 || Cir. 1989). 12 Judge Butcher also provided him with notice and an opportunity to be heard on the 13 issue. (See ECF 70, Order to Show Cause; ECF 88, Mr. Lara’s Response to OSC; ECFs 14 and 103, Minute Entries on Hearings; ECF 149, Order on Sanctions). The OSC 15 included the misconduct. (ECF 70). Judge Butcher cited the Court’s inherent power to 16 ||impose sanctions and specific local rules that authorize it. (ECFs 84 and 97); see In re 17 || DeVille, 361 F.3d 539, 548 (9th Cir. 2004). 18 And the Order contained the required factual determinations. See Zambrano, 885 19 || F.2d at 1480; Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2001). Mr. Lara failed to show 20 || the decision was “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to the law.” The sanction ($1,000) was 21 || appropriate, reasonable, and proportionate. The Court OVERRULES the objection.' 22 IT ISSO ORDERED. 23 Dated: September 17, 2021

95 Hon, James Lorenz United States District Judge 26 27 5g The Court denies the request for a stay to seek appellate review. There is also no reason for Judge Butcher to recuse from this case.