Kinzie Advanced Polymers LLC v. Highopes LLC

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: July 2, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00388
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 KINZIE ADVANCED POLYMERS LLC, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00388-LK 11 doing business as GROVE BAGS, ORDER SANCTIONING 12 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF v. 13 HIGHOPES, LLC, 14 Defendant. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court following its June 20, 2024 Order to Show Cause. Dkt. 17 No. 37. On June 7, 2024, the Court ordered both parties to file amended corporate disclosure 18 statements by June 14, 2024. See Dkt. No. 33. Plaintiff Kinzie Advanced Polymers LLC filed its 19 statement on June 18, 2024, without explanation for its delay. Dkt. No. 36. Accordingly, the Court 20 ordered Plaintiff to show cause within seven days why it should not be sanctioned for failing to 21 timely comply with the Court’s June 7, 2024 order. Dkt. No. 37. To date, Plaintiff has not 22 responded to the Court’s order to show cause. 23 24 1 A federal court’s inherent authority allows it to “to fashion an appropriate sanction for 2 conduct which abuses the judicial process.” Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 581 U.S. 3 101, 107 (2017) (quoting Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44–45 (1991)); see also Fink v. 4 Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 991 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Three primary sources of authority enable courts to

5 sanction parties or their lawyers for improper conduct: (1) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, 6 which applies to signed writings filed with the court, (2) 28 U.S.C. § 1927, which is aimed at 7 penalizing conduct that unreasonably and vexatiously multiplies the proceedings, and (3) the 8 court’s inherent power.”); LCR 11(c). This inherent authority includes the ability “to impose 9 sanctions for bad faith, which includes a broad range of willful improper conduct,” Fink, 239 F.3d 10 at 992, such as the disobedience of a court order, see, e.g., Aloe Vera of Am., Inc. v. United States, 11 376 F.3d 960, 965 (9th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (citing Fink, 239 F.3d at 991). 12 In this case, Plaintiff was required to file an amended corporate disclosure statement on or 13 before June 14, 2024. Dkt. No. 33. Plaintiff filed the statement late without offering any 14 explanation whatsoever, and thereafter failed to respond to the Court’s show cause order. Dkt.

15 Nos. 36–37. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS sanctions in the amount of $125 against 16 Plaintiff. No later than July 12, 2024, Plaintiff must deliver a $125 check payable to the Clerk of 17 Court. Future violations of Court orders may result in additional sanctions. 18 19 Dated this 2nd day of July, 2024. 20 A 21 Lauren King United States District Judge 22 23 24