James Jenkins Jr. v. Sharon Jiminez

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: June 25, 2024
• Docket: 8:23-cv-01317
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES JENKINS, JR., and Case No. 8:23-cv-01317-JWH-DFM JAMES JENKINS, III, 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 THE COURT SHOULD NOT v. HOLD ATTORNEY RESHMA 14 KAMATH IN CONTEMPT SHARON JIMENEZ, 15 COLDWELL BANKER CORPORATION, doing business as 16 Coldwell Banker Platinum Properties, 17 ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT LAGUNA 18 NIGUEL, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, 19 Defendants. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 Plaintiffs James Jenkins, Jr. and James Jenkins, III filed the instant case in 2 July 2023.1 They assert various constitutional and state law claims against 3 Defendants Coldwell Banker Corporation, Sharon Jimenez (the alleged real 4 estate agent), and the Orange County Sheriff’s Department Laguna Niguel 5 (“OCSD”) in relation to an alleged terminated sale of James Jenkins, Jr.’s 6 home.2 Attorney Reshma Kamath is Plaintiffs’ counsel of record.3 7 Plaintiffs twice moved for default judgment against OCSD.4 The Clerk 8 issued a Notice of Deficiencies with respect to each motion.5 After examining 9 the proof-of-service documents that Plaintiffs filed with respect to OCSD,6 the 10 Court was unconvinced that Plaintiffs had accomplished service of process upon 11 OCSD. Accordingly, the Court issued an Order for Supplemental Briefing, 12 through which it instructed Plaintiffs to explain why service was properly 13 accomplished upon OCSD.7 Specifically, the Court laid out its understanding of 14 the rules for service of process upon a municipal government entity and noted: 15 Here, Plaintiffs appear to have attempted service of process in 16 person, “by serving to and leaving with Madison Simmons—Crime 17 Prevention Specialist” and by U.S. Mail. Mail service upon a 18 19 1 See generally Compl. [ECF No. 1]. 20 2 Id. 21 3 Id. 22 4 Pls.’ First Mot. for Default J. Against Def. OCSD (the “First Motion”) 23 [ECF No. 32]; Pls.’ First Mot. for Default J. Against Def. OCSD (the “Second Motion”) [ECF No. 34]. 24 5 Notice to Filer of Deficiencies re: First Motion [ECF No. 33]; Notice to 25 Filer of Deficiencies re: Second Motion [ECF No. 37]. 26 6 Proof of Service under FRCP 5(b)(2)(D) [ECF No. 20]; Proof of Service 27 under FRCP 5(b)(2)(D) [ECF No. 24]. 1 municipality is not allowed under either the Federal or State rules, 2 and it is not apparent to the Court that Madison Simmons, Crime 3 Prevention Specialist, is a “head of [OCSD’s] governing body,” as 4 required for service of process.8 5 The Court instructed Plaintiffs to file a responsive brief “explaining why service 6 has been properly accomplished on OCSD” no later than April 19, 2024.9 In her 7 Response, Ms. Kamath, lead counsel for Plaintiffs, asserted two points that the 8 Court regards as contemptuous: 9 • Ms. Kamath argued that “the court/clerk, each has made grave mistakes 10 in this case” by issuing certain Notices of Deficiency with respect to 11 Plaintiffs’ motions for default; she stated: “Whether this is the court’s 12 mismanagement, court’s inadvertence, or blind belief in the clerk’s 13 statements, it is the court’s error and only a good court/judge will admit 14 that”; and 15 • Ms. Kamath asserted that Plaintiffs had indeed properly served OCSD 16 because she “knows how to draft, prepare and win” a motion for default 17 judgment; she alleged that the clerk “put falsified statements on the 18 docket”; and she accused the Court of racism, stating: “Counsel does 19 not want to demonstrate that in this case the judges/staff are biased as 20 most courtrooms in California are. Counsel prefers to litigate on the 21 merits. White people and people from other ethnicities/cultures within 22 the courtrooms should not just assume things about litigants/counsel 23 from other cultures/ethnicities when they’re (former) the ones making 24 mistakes.” She asserted that the proof of service that the Court already 25 26

27 8 Id. at 2 (footnotes omitted). 1 examined and found to be insufficient “should be sufficient proof” that 2 OCSD was properly served.10 3 Ms. Kamath failed to appear at the June 21, 2024, Scheduling Conference 4 during which the Court discussed her Response; rather, she had another 5 attorney “specially appear” on her, and her clients’, behalf.11 While attorneys 6 may “specially appear” on behalf of others in California state courts, see, e.g., 7 Streit, 82 Cal. App. 4th at 444 n.2 (2000) (explaining the practice), no such 8 practice is authorized in this Court. Cf. L.R. 83-2.3 (Withdrawal and 9 Substitution of Attorneys). 10 The Court “ha[s] power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its 11 discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as . . . [m]isbehavior 12 of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration 13 of justice; . . . [or d]isobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, 14 rule, decree, or command.” 18 U.S.C. § 401. When counsel makes a “vicious 15 personal attack” on a judge, for example, counsel is in contempt. See, e.g., In re 16 Dellinger, 502 F.2d 813, 815 (7th Cir. 1974), cert. denied 420 U.S. 990 (1975). 17 Counsel “never has the right to let [her] temper, [her] zeal, or [her] intention 18 lead [her] into disrespectful, accusative language to the court.” MacInnis v. 19 United States, 191 F.2d 157, 159 (9th Cir. 1951). 20 In MacInnis, the Ninth Circuit held that “[t]he act of addressing the court 21 . . . with the statements ‘You should cite yourself for misconduct’ and ‘You 22 ought to be ashamed of yourself’, unmodified, are, per se, contemptuous.” Id. 23 at 160. Here, Ms. Kamath’s accusations go beyond the “per se contemptuous” 24

25 10 See generally Notice Filed by Pls. (the “Response”) [ECF No. 40]. 26 11 A “special appearance” “denote[s] an appearance at a hearing by one attorney at the request and in the place of the attorney of record, whether with 27 or without compensation.” Streit v. Covington & Crowe, 82 Cal. App. 4th 441, 1|| conduct at issue in MacInnis. Ms. Kamath has accused the Court and Court staff of impropriety, including racism, without any basis. Additionally, she continues to insist that service was properly effectuated upon OCSD—despite the Court’s 4|| clear instruction of her errors and how she might alleviate them to effectuate service properly. 6 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 7 1. Attorney Reshma Kamath is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE why || the Court should not hold her in contempt—including but not limited to 9|| monetary fines and a term of imprisonment. Ms. Kamath is DIRECTED to file || her response with the Court no later than August 2, 2024. 11 2. A hearing on this Order to Show Cause is SET for August 16, 2024, 12|| at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 9D of the Ronald Reagan Federal Building and U.S. 13 || Courthouse, 411 W. 4th Street, Santa Ana, California. Ms. Kamath is 14|| ORDERED to appear in person at that hearing, which will remain on calendar 15|| even if Plaintiffs dismiss this case or this case is otherwise terminated. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: June 25, 2024 MY, Ud pmens 19 GNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28