Latanya Williams v. P.I. Properties No. 42, L.P.

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-05023-ODW-JPR Document 33 Filed 11/15/22 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:138

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No. 2:22-cv-05023-ODW (JPRx) Date November 15, 2022 Title Latanya Williams v. P.I. Properties No. 42, L.P.

Present: The Honorable Otis D. Wright II, United States District Judge Sheila English Not reported N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not present Not present Proceedings (In Chambers): ORDER TO SHOW FURTHER CAUSE re: Sanctions

The Court received and reviewed Plaintiff’s counsel’s November 14, 2022 Declaration, filed in response to the Court’s November 8, 2022 Order to File Supplemental Materials. (Decl. Jason J. Kim re: Other Mots., ECF No. 32.) Based on the information contained therein, the Court observes that each of the fifteen default judgment motions recently filed in the Central District of California by Plaintiff’s firm fail to mention Lopez v. Catalina Channel Express, 974 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2020), and continue to cite Vogel v. Rite Aid, 992 F. Supp. 2d 998 (C.D. Cal. 2014), which, as Plaintiffs’ counsel is aware, was abrogated by Lopez. At least some of the fifteen motions are based on the exact same template counsel used for the default judgment motion in the present matter; none of the motions address the requirement under Lopez that the plaintiff articulate a plausible proposal for barrier removal.

The Court finds these observations highly concerning and confusing. The declarations Plaintiff’s counsel filed in this matter in response to the Court’s original Order to Show Cause, (Decl. Jason J. Kim, ECF No. 27-1; Decl. Jason Yoon (“Yoon Decl.”), ECF No. 27-2), indicate that the reason an outdated default judgment brief was filed in the present matter is because counsel mistakenly used an outdated, pre-Lopez template. (Yoon Decl. ¶ 5 “I did modify the template but I must have forgotten to save the .WORD document for the template, which resulted in the old case law remaining without the Lopez ruling included.”).) But if this is true, then the Court would expect to see that the default judgment motions recently filed by Plaintiffs’ counsel in other cases were filed pursuant to a template prepared after, and in light CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 2 Case 2:22-cv-05023-ODW-JPR Document 33 Filed 11/15/22 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:139

of, Lopez. (Cf. id. ¶ 6 (“I have made sure that the new template for motions for default judgment was properly saved after replacing the older case law with the Lopez decision. . . . This Court will not witness the same error again in any future motions for default judgment.”).) Instead, what the Court sees, repeatedly, is the exact same template that was filed in the present matter. This casts very serious doubt on whether the failure to engage with Lopez in the present case was truly due to a “technical error,” as counsel asserts. (Decl. Jason J. Kim ¶ 4.)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s attorneys are ORDERED TO SHOW FURTHER CAUSE, in writing only, to be received by the Court no later than November 18, 2022, why the Court should not impose the previously discussed $8,001 sanction on the additional basis of misrepresentations in the sworn Declarations of Counsel filed in this matter on November 7, 2022. All other dates, deadlines, hearings, and orders remain in full force and effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED. : 00 Initials of Preparer SE

CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 2 of 2