Buccola v. Boucher

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: August 21, 2024
• Docket: 5:22-cv-03877
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 THERESA I. BUCCOLA, Case No. 22-cv-03877-NC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO 12 SHOW CAUSE UNDER v. FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL 13 PROCEDURE 11(C)(3) JOSEPH L. BOUCHER, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 A party violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) if it files or advocates 18 motions or other papers “for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary 19 delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.” Rule 11(c)(3) provides that “[o]n its 20 own, the court may order an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why conduct 21 specifically described in the order has not violated Rule 11(b).” If the court then 22 determines a party has violated Rule 11(b), it may impose an appropriate sanction. Fed. R. 23 Civ. P. 11(c)(1). Sanctions are limited “to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable 24 conduct by” a party and “others similarly situated.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(4). 25 Pursuant to Rule 11(c)(3), the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why 26 she has not violated Rule 11(b). This order arises from Plaintiff’s pattern of taunting 27 opposing counsel, including through uncivil and accusatory name-calling. 1 as: “a rogue agent”; “assumed counsel”; “fake and phantom counsel”; “fumbling, derelict 2 attorneys”; “fraudulent”; “the pretender known as Thomas Fay”; “fake counsel”; “Criminal 3 Thomas Fay”; “Thomas Fay-ke”; and at fault for “apathy, laziness and dereliction of 4 duty.” ECF 232 at 3; ECF 239 at 3; ECF 242 at 1–3; ECF 243 at 1–2; ECF 248 at 6–7; 5 ECF 249 at 3. Relatedly, Plaintiff has repeatedly accused opposing counsel of criminal, 6 deceitful, and fraudulent behavior, including committing felonies and perjury. See, e.g., 7 ECF 232 at 3; ECF 239 at 2; ECF 242 at 2–3; ECF 243; ECF 248 at 5–7; ECF 249 at 5. 8 These examples reflect a larger trend within Plaintiff’s filings and arguments in 9 recent months. As such, on July 8, 2024, the Court cautioned Plaintiff:

10 The Court also cautions Plaintiff as to the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Rule 11(b) applies to 11 unrepresented parties as well as attorneys. Under that rule, a party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, 12 information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, a pleading, written motion, or other 13 paper filed with the court is “not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, 14 or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.” A filing that is repetitive of prior motions and objections, exceeds page limits, 15 contains facts that are not supported by declaration or affidavit, refers to opposing counsel as “Phantom Counsel” and 16 “Wrongdoer,” threatens criminal prosecution, and suggests that it has been sent to third parties could be found to be 17 presented for an improper purpose and subject to sanctions. 18 ECF 211 at 9 (emphasis added). Based on the examples above, Plaintiff has not abided by 19 this warning. 20 Anger, frustration, disagreements with or even dislike of an opposing party do not 21 excuse or condone disrespect. All parties, including pro se litigants, must conduct 22 themselves with “civility, decorum, and professionalism.” Malloy v. Regents of Univ. of 23 Cal., No. 20-cv-7312-SBA, 2021 WL 7448888, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2021); see 24 McColm v. Foremost Ins. Co., No. 09-4132-SI, 2011 WL 3843917, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25 30, 2011) (instructing parties to “conduct themselves with decorum and avoid the use of 26 profanity or name calling”). Plaintiff’s escalating attacks reflect a lack of civility and 27 respect, and may rise to the level of harassment under Rule 11(b). Plaintiff is permitted to 1 || or scornful manner. Such language is also unnecessary; the Court considers arguments 2 || whether they are presented with a neutral or acerbic tone. 3 Plaintiff is therefore ordered to show cause in writing by September 3, 2024, as to 4 || why she has not violated Rule 11(b) by taunting opposing counsel. Pursuant to Rule 5 11(c)(4), if the Court proceeds to order a sanction, it would be “limited to what suffices to 6 || deter repetition of the conduct.” 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 || Dated: August 20, 2024 —<———~_ _ NATHANAEL M. COUSINS 10 United States Magistrate Judge 11 12

A 16

& 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28