8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10
11 ESTATE OF STEPHEN INGLE, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00377-CDB
12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DISCHARGING SANCTIONS ORDER AND REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO PAY 13 v. SANCTIONS
14 KERN COUNTY HOSPITAL (Docs. 17, 20)
AUTHORITY, 15 ORDER DISCHARGING MAY 27, 2025, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Defendant. 16 (Doc. 16) 17 14-Day Deadline 18 19 Relevant Background 20 On May 12, 2025, the parties in Scott, et al. v. County of Kern, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv- 21 00423-CDB (the “Lead Action”), Scott, et al. v. Kern County Hospital Authority, Case No. 1:25- 22 cv-00378-CDB (“Action 378”), and Estate of Stephen Ingle, et al. v. Kern County Hospital 23 Authority, Case No. 1:25-cv-00377-JLT-CDB, filed a stipulated request to consolidate the cases 24 wherein they represented a mutual intent to consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (Lead Action, 25 Doc. 45). On May 13, 2025, the Court directed the parties here to complete and file the 26 consent/decline of magistrate judge jurisdiction form included in the case opening documents. 27 (Doc. 14; see Doc. 5-3). On May 19, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a stipulated request to file a consolidated 28 complaint in the Lead Action. (Lead Action, Doc. 46). On May 20, 2025, the Court issued a 1 minute order in the Lead Action directing any parties who had not filed the consent/decline form 2 in the actions to be consolidated to complete, sign, and file the form within three days of entry of 3 the order. (Lead Action, Doc. 47). 4 Two weeks following the Court’s order directing the parties to file consent/decline forms 5 in this action, Defendant Kern County Hospital Authority (“KCHA”) still had failed to comply. 6 Accordingly, on May 27, 2025, the Court ordered KCHA to show cause in writing within two days 7 why sanctions should not be imposed for its for failure to comply with the Court’s order regarding 8 filing of the consent/decline form. KCHA was advised that “[a]ny failure by Defendant to timely 9 comply with this order will result in the imposition of sanctions.” (Doc. 16). Because KCHA failed 10 to timely respond to the order to show cause, the Court entered an order imposing monetary 11 sanctions in the amount of $100 a day, beginning on May 30, 2025, to accrue until KCHA filed the 12 required consent/decline form. (Doc. 17). 13 Discussion 14 Pending before the Court is KCHA’s response to the Court’s order to show cause, filed on 15 June 2, 2025. (Doc. 20). Defendant’s counsel Hugh S. Spackman declares that, though KCHA 16 has not filed an answer or motion to dismiss in this action or Action 378, KCHA did sign a 17 stipulation (citing Doc. 431) that “probably resulted in [his] name being added to the court’s 18 service list.” (Doc. 20 at 3 ¶ 3). Mr. Spackman further declares that another attorney in his 19 office, Linda M. Werner, is co-defense counsel with him on this matter and was working with 20 Plaintiffs’ counsel. (Id. ¶ 5). Mr. Spackman states that he did not review thoroughly the emails 21 from the Court regarding its orders as he was out of office and “mistakenly believed that Ms. 22 Werner was receiving all of these e-mails. Ms. Werner was not included in the email service 23 from the court.” Mr. Spackman attests that he understands it is his responsibility to make sure 24 Ms. Werner was added to the list for service and that he incorrectly assumed Ms. Werner was 25
26 1 As there is no Doc. 43 in the instant action, the Court presumes counsel intended to cite to Doc. 43 in the Lead Action. However, the Court is uncertain whether counsel intended to cite to Doc. 43 in the 27 Lead Action, in particular, as being signed on behalf of KCHA, as Doc. 43 is neither signed by counsel for Defendant nor attaches any declaration from counsel. Doc. 45 in the Lead Action, however, is in fact 28 signed by counsel for Defendant. (Lead Action, Doc. 45 at 5). 1 receiving notices from the Court as Ms. Werner had been participating in “group emails for a 2 couple of months.” (Id. ¶ 6). Mr. Spackman apologizes for the misunderstanding and asks the 3 Court not to issue sanctions. (Id. at 3-4 ¶¶ 8-9). 2 4 Defendant also attaches a declaration from Ms. Werner. Ms. Werner provides background 5 regarding the stipulations agreed to by the parties. (Id. at 5 ¶¶ 4-6). She attests that she did not 6 believe that agreeing to a stipulation to consolidate would constitute an appearance. (Id. ¶ 6). 7 Ms. Werner declares that her declaration was included in the renewed stipulation to vacate case 8 management dates (citing Lead Action, Doc. 48) to “detail the prejudice defendant KCHA would 9 experience if the current trial date remained.” (Id. at 6 ¶ 9). Ms. Werner declares that as KCHA 10 had yet to file an answer or a motion to dismiss, she was “under the mistaken impression that 11 KCHA was not one of the parties that was subject to the consent to magistrate order from the 12 court.” (Id. ¶ 10). 13 Ms. Werner represents that she never received any emails from the court regarding the 14 order to show cause and, if she had, she “would have immediately responded to this court as to 15 why KCHA had failed to comply and our reasons as to why sanctions should not be imposed.” 16 Ms. Werner states that “[i]t was always KCHA’s intention to consent, but I thought that KCHA’s 17 consent would be required after having actually appeared in the case as a consent to magistrate 18 would constitute an appearance.” (Id. ¶ 11). 3 Ms. Werner apologizes for the misunderstanding 19 and asks the Court not to issue sanctions. (Id. ¶ 11-12). 4 20 The docket reflects that KCHA was served with summons and complaint and that KCHA 21 began receiving notice of filings in this matter effective April 21, 2025, when counsel for KCHA 22 (Mr. Spackman) filed a jointly executed stipulated request to extend KCHA’s deadline to file a 23 responsive pleading. See (Doc. 10). Thereafter, the Court twice directed KCHA to file the 24 consent/decline form. KCHA’s failure to timely comply with the Court’s orders has 25 2 Mr. Spackman’s declaration does not include a paragraph seven, instead going from paragraph 26 six to paragraph eight. The Court cites to the paragraphs as they are listed in the declaration. 3 Ms. Werner’s declaration includes two paragraphs numbered as paragraph 11. This citation 27 refers to the first one, beginning on line 16. 4 Ms. Werner’s declaration includes two paragraphs numbered as paragraph 11. This citation 28 refers to the second one, beginning on line 23. 1 unnecessarily required the Court to expend limited resources seeking to gain counsel’s 2 compliance and delayed the proceedings not only in this action, but also the Lead Action. 3 Although in their declarations, counsel appropriately express remorse and take accountability for 4 their failure to timely make the required filing and abide by this Court’s orders, their explanations 5 for these shortcomings do not evidence good cause to set aside the imposition of sanctions. 6 In light of Defendant’s counsels’ response to the Court’s sanctions order and order to 7 show cause, the Court shall discharge further sanctions and shall impose a total sanction of $300 8 based on the Court’s order. A single payment of $300 will satisfy the total sanction imposed in 9 both this action and Action 378. As addressed above, while the Court does not find good cause to 10 excuse counsels’ delinquency, the Court notes that Defendant has now filed the consent/decline 11 form (Doc. 18) as well as designation of counsel for service for Ms. Werner (Doc. 19). 12 Accordingly, to deter Defendant and its counsel from future violations of the Court’s orders and 13 the Local Rules and to ensure they abide by all applicable deadlines and continue to actively 14 monitor docketed filings and notices in this case, the Court will impose a total sanction of 15 $300.00. See, e.g., Gen. Sig. Corp. v. Donallco, Inc., 933 F.2d 1013 (9th Cir.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10
11 ESTATE OF STEPHEN INGLE, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00377-CDB
12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DISCHARGING SANCTIONS ORDER AND REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO PAY 13 v. SANCTIONS
14 KERN COUNTY HOSPITAL (Docs. 17, 20)
AUTHORITY, 15 ORDER DISCHARGING MAY 27, 2025, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Defendant. 16 (Doc. 16) 17 14-Day Deadline 18 19 Relevant Background 20 On May 12, 2025, the parties in Scott, et al. v. County of Kern, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv- 21 00423-CDB (the “Lead Action”), Scott, et al. v. Kern County Hospital Authority, Case No. 1:25- 22 cv-00378-CDB (“Action 378”), and Estate of Stephen Ingle, et al. v. Kern County Hospital 23 Authority, Case No. 1:25-cv-00377-JLT-CDB, filed a stipulated request to consolidate the cases 24 wherein they represented a mutual intent to consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (Lead Action, 25 Doc. 45). On May 13, 2025, the Court directed the parties here to complete and file the 26 consent/decline of magistrate judge jurisdiction form included in the case opening documents. 27 (Doc. 14; see Doc. 5-3). On May 19, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a stipulated request to file a consolidated 28 complaint in the Lead Action. (Lead Action, Doc. 46). On May 20, 2025, the Court issued a 1 minute order in the Lead Action directing any parties who had not filed the consent/decline form 2 in the actions to be consolidated to complete, sign, and file the form within three days of entry of 3 the order. (Lead Action, Doc. 47). 4 Two weeks following the Court’s order directing the parties to file consent/decline forms 5 in this action, Defendant Kern County Hospital Authority (“KCHA”) still had failed to comply. 6 Accordingly, on May 27, 2025, the Court ordered KCHA to show cause in writing within two days 7 why sanctions should not be imposed for its for failure to comply with the Court’s order regarding 8 filing of the consent/decline form. KCHA was advised that “[a]ny failure by Defendant to timely 9 comply with this order will result in the imposition of sanctions.” (Doc. 16). Because KCHA failed 10 to timely respond to the order to show cause, the Court entered an order imposing monetary 11 sanctions in the amount of $100 a day, beginning on May 30, 2025, to accrue until KCHA filed the 12 required consent/decline form. (Doc. 17). 13 Discussion 14 Pending before the Court is KCHA’s response to the Court’s order to show cause, filed on 15 June 2, 2025. (Doc. 20). Defendant’s counsel Hugh S. Spackman declares that, though KCHA 16 has not filed an answer or motion to dismiss in this action or Action 378, KCHA did sign a 17 stipulation (citing Doc. 431) that “probably resulted in [his] name being added to the court’s 18 service list.” (Doc. 20 at 3 ¶ 3). Mr. Spackman further declares that another attorney in his 19 office, Linda M. Werner, is co-defense counsel with him on this matter and was working with 20 Plaintiffs’ counsel. (Id. ¶ 5). Mr. Spackman states that he did not review thoroughly the emails 21 from the Court regarding its orders as he was out of office and “mistakenly believed that Ms. 22 Werner was receiving all of these e-mails. Ms. Werner was not included in the email service 23 from the court.” Mr. Spackman attests that he understands it is his responsibility to make sure 24 Ms. Werner was added to the list for service and that he incorrectly assumed Ms. Werner was 25
26 1 As there is no Doc. 43 in the instant action, the Court presumes counsel intended to cite to Doc. 43 in the Lead Action. However, the Court is uncertain whether counsel intended to cite to Doc. 43 in the 27 Lead Action, in particular, as being signed on behalf of KCHA, as Doc. 43 is neither signed by counsel for Defendant nor attaches any declaration from counsel. Doc. 45 in the Lead Action, however, is in fact 28 signed by counsel for Defendant. (Lead Action, Doc. 45 at 5). 1 receiving notices from the Court as Ms. Werner had been participating in “group emails for a 2 couple of months.” (Id. ¶ 6). Mr. Spackman apologizes for the misunderstanding and asks the 3 Court not to issue sanctions. (Id. at 3-4 ¶¶ 8-9). 2 4 Defendant also attaches a declaration from Ms. Werner. Ms. Werner provides background 5 regarding the stipulations agreed to by the parties. (Id. at 5 ¶¶ 4-6). She attests that she did not 6 believe that agreeing to a stipulation to consolidate would constitute an appearance. (Id. ¶ 6). 7 Ms. Werner declares that her declaration was included in the renewed stipulation to vacate case 8 management dates (citing Lead Action, Doc. 48) to “detail the prejudice defendant KCHA would 9 experience if the current trial date remained.” (Id. at 6 ¶ 9). Ms. Werner declares that as KCHA 10 had yet to file an answer or a motion to dismiss, she was “under the mistaken impression that 11 KCHA was not one of the parties that was subject to the consent to magistrate order from the 12 court.” (Id. ¶ 10). 13 Ms. Werner represents that she never received any emails from the court regarding the 14 order to show cause and, if she had, she “would have immediately responded to this court as to 15 why KCHA had failed to comply and our reasons as to why sanctions should not be imposed.” 16 Ms. Werner states that “[i]t was always KCHA’s intention to consent, but I thought that KCHA’s 17 consent would be required after having actually appeared in the case as a consent to magistrate 18 would constitute an appearance.” (Id. ¶ 11). 3 Ms. Werner apologizes for the misunderstanding 19 and asks the Court not to issue sanctions. (Id. ¶ 11-12). 4 20 The docket reflects that KCHA was served with summons and complaint and that KCHA 21 began receiving notice of filings in this matter effective April 21, 2025, when counsel for KCHA 22 (Mr. Spackman) filed a jointly executed stipulated request to extend KCHA’s deadline to file a 23 responsive pleading. See (Doc. 10). Thereafter, the Court twice directed KCHA to file the 24 consent/decline form. KCHA’s failure to timely comply with the Court’s orders has 25 2 Mr. Spackman’s declaration does not include a paragraph seven, instead going from paragraph 26 six to paragraph eight. The Court cites to the paragraphs as they are listed in the declaration. 3 Ms. Werner’s declaration includes two paragraphs numbered as paragraph 11. This citation 27 refers to the first one, beginning on line 16. 4 Ms. Werner’s declaration includes two paragraphs numbered as paragraph 11. This citation 28 refers to the second one, beginning on line 23. 1 unnecessarily required the Court to expend limited resources seeking to gain counsel’s 2 compliance and delayed the proceedings not only in this action, but also the Lead Action. 3 Although in their declarations, counsel appropriately express remorse and take accountability for 4 their failure to timely make the required filing and abide by this Court’s orders, their explanations 5 for these shortcomings do not evidence good cause to set aside the imposition of sanctions. 6 In light of Defendant’s counsels’ response to the Court’s sanctions order and order to 7 show cause, the Court shall discharge further sanctions and shall impose a total sanction of $300 8 based on the Court’s order. A single payment of $300 will satisfy the total sanction imposed in 9 both this action and Action 378. As addressed above, while the Court does not find good cause to 10 excuse counsels’ delinquency, the Court notes that Defendant has now filed the consent/decline 11 form (Doc. 18) as well as designation of counsel for service for Ms. Werner (Doc. 19). 12 Accordingly, to deter Defendant and its counsel from future violations of the Court’s orders and 13 the Local Rules and to ensure they abide by all applicable deadlines and continue to actively 14 monitor docketed filings and notices in this case, the Court will impose a total sanction of 15 $300.00. See, e.g., Gen. Sig. Corp. v. Donallco, Inc., 933 F.2d 1013 (9th Cir. 1991) (affirming 16 district court’s award of monetary sanction that “was coercive and not compensatory” as “an 17 amount required to prevent future violations”) (unpublished). 18 Conclusion and Order 19 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 20 1. Defendant shall pay the Clerk of the Court $300.00 in full satisfaction of the sanction 21 imposed in this case and in Action 378 no later than June 17, 2025; 22 2. Defendant’s counsel shall promptly file proof of payment with the Court once 23 payment is made; 24 3. If such payment and proof of payment is not timely made, additional sanctions of 25 $50.00 per day shall issue from June 17, 2025, until full payment is received; and 26 /// 27 /// 28 1 4. The Court’s order to show cause (Doc. 16) is HEREBY DISCHARGED. 2 Any failure by Defendant to comply with this order will result in the imposition of 3 | sanctions. 4 | IT IS SOORDERED. >| Dated: _ Sune 3, 2025 | hr 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28