Dang v. Pontier

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH DANG, Case No.: 18cv1869-LAB (BGS)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. HEARING ON REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 14 DAVID PONTIER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 David Pontier, a Defendant in this interpleader action, filed an ex parte 18 motion asking the Court to sanction Plaintiff Joseph Dang under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 19 for having improperly filed this action in order to thwart a state bar proceeding, and 20 requested a hearing. This action was dismissed last June. 21 A party’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions must be served on the opposing party 22 before filing, and must not be filed or presented to the court if the challenged filing 23 (here, the complaint) is withdrawn or corrected within 21 days after service. Fed. 24 R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2). Pontier does not show that he served Dang with his motion 25 before filing it, and Dang has already voluntarily dismissed the complaint. Pontier 26 also asks for attorney’s fees, but because he is appearing pro se, he would not be 27 entitled to them in this case even if sanctions were awarded. See Blanchard v. 28 Morton Sch. Dist., 509 F.3d 934, 938 (9th Cir. 2007). 1 The Court recognizes that it has authority to sanction Dang or any other 2 |jattorney or party appearing before it, even without a motion for sanctions. 3 ||Accepting Pontier’s representations as true, Dang may have done something 4 wrong by filing this action, or by failing to deposit the res with the Court. But the 5 ||motion does not show he committed fraud on this Court or committed an offense 6 || that warrants sanction by this Court. 7 Nothing in this order prevents Pontier from making his argument to the state 8 ||bar, or from making a complaint to the state bar, or from filing an appropriate civil 9 || action. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: March 13, 2020 13 / vit 4. (by WY 14 Hon. Larry Alan Burns 15 Chief United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28