Bender v. U.S. Department of Transportation

S.D. California

Bender v. U.S. Department of Transportation

DecidedMarch 20, 2025

Docket3:23-cv-00023

StatusUnknown

This text of Bender v. U.S. Department of Transportation (Bender v. U.S. Department of Transportation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bender v. U.S. Department of Transportation, (S.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 || Raymond BENDER, Case No.: 23-cv-0023-AGS-AHG 4 Plaintiff,| ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 5 || SANCTIONS MOTION (ECF 32) 6 || UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 7 TRANSPORTATION, et al., Defendants. ? Plaintiff moves for Rule 11 sanctions due to the purported inadequacy of the 10 || amended answer. (See ECF 32, at 15); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. In particular, he faults 11 the defense for failing to reveal “the records the U.S. Attorney gathered and reviewed” for 12 that answer (ECF 32, at 15), failing to attach various exhibits and documents with it (see, I3 lle g., id. at 9), and failing to disclose the “bases” of all affirmative defenses, including all 14 |! the “Facts and Law the Government Intends to Raise” (id. at 25). But Rule 11 motions 13 |l«should not be employed as a discovery device or to test the legal sufficiency or efficacy 16 | of allegations in the pleadings; other motions are available for those purposes.” Fed. R. 17 liciv. □□□ advisory committee’s note to 1993 amendment. At any rate, □□□□□□□□□□□ 18 “conclusory allegations” do not carry his burden of proving that this pleading is in any way 19 “frivolous, legally unreasonable, without factual foundation or brought for an improper 20 purpose,” as required to impose Rule ll sanctions. See Brisken v. Griego, No. 21 CV-16-02434-PHX-JIT (ESW), 2018 WL 10207999, at *1—2 (D. Ariz. Dec. 21, 2018). 22 Thus, plaintiffs Rule 11 motion is DENIED. His request to “judicially notice 23 Judge Shadur’s Rule 8 principles” (ECF 32, at 17) is also DENIED. This Court may only 24 judicially notice “an adjudicative fact.” See Fed. R. Evid. 201(a). 23 |/Dated: March 20, 2025 26 Aif-— 27 Andrew G. Schopler 28 United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 || Raymond BENDER, Case No.: 23-cv-0023-AGS-AHG 4 Plaintiff,| ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 5 || SANCTIONS MOTION (ECF 32) 6 || UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 7 TRANSPORTATION, et al., Defendants. ? Plaintiff moves for Rule 11 sanctions due to the purported inadequacy of the 10 || amended answer. (See ECF 32, at 15); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. In particular, he faults 11 the defense for failing to reveal “the records the U.S. Attorney gathered and reviewed” for 12 that answer (ECF 32, at 15), failing to attach various exhibits and documents with it (see, I3 lle g., id. at 9), and failing to disclose the “bases” of all affirmative defenses, including all 14 |! the “Facts and Law the Government Intends to Raise” (id. at 25). But Rule 11 motions 13 |l«should not be employed as a discovery device or to test the legal sufficiency or efficacy 16 | of allegations in the pleadings; other motions are available for those purposes.” Fed. R. 17 liciv. □□□ advisory committee’s note to 1993 amendment. At any rate, □□□□□□□□□□□ 18 “conclusory allegations” do not carry his burden of proving that this pleading is in any way 19 “frivolous, legally unreasonable, without factual foundation or brought for an improper 20 purpose,” as required to impose Rule ll sanctions. See Brisken v. Griego, No. 21 CV-16-02434-PHX-JIT (ESW), 2018 WL 10207999, at *1—2 (D. Ariz. Dec. 21, 2018). 22 Thus, plaintiffs Rule 11 motion is DENIED. His request to “judicially notice 23 Judge Shadur’s Rule 8 principles” (ECF 32, at 17) is also DENIED. This Court may only 24 judicially notice “an adjudicative fact.” See Fed. R. Evid. 201(a). 23 |/Dated: March 20, 2025 26 Aif-— 27 Andrew G. Schopler 28 United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Bender v. U.S. Department of Transportation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bender-v-us-department-of-transportation-casd-2025.