Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Bosa Development California II, Inc.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: August 14, 2019
• Docket: 3:17-cv-00666
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Case No.: 3:17-cv-0666-AJB-BGS

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 13 v. MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (Doc. No. 118) 14 Bosa Development California II, Inc., et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 Defendant moves the Court for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18 arguing Plaintiff “blatantly ignored the absolute confidentiality of mediation writings and 19 communications and, indeed, has purported to file such writings in the public record in 20 support of its motion for summary judgment. . . .” (Doc. No. 118-1 at 8.) 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 provides in pertinent part, that when an attorney 22 presents a signed paper to a court that attorney is certifying that to the best of his or her 23 “knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the 24 circumstances ... the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing 25 law or by nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for 26 establishing new law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2). When one party seeks sanctions against 27 another, a court must first determine whether any provision of Rule 11(b) has been violated. 28 Warren v. Guelker, 29 F.3d 1386, 1389 (9th Cir. 1994). A finding of subjective bad faith 1 ||is not required under Rule 11. See Smith v. Ricks, 31 F.3d 1478, 1488 (9th Cir. 1994) 2 || “Counsel can no longer avoid the sting of Rule 11 sanctions by operating under the guise 3 ||of a pure heart and empty head.”). “Instead, the question is whether, at the time the paper 4 || was presented to the Court (or later defended) it lacked evidentiary support or contained 5 || ‘frivolous’ legal arguments.” Odish vy. CACH, LLC, No. 12cv1710-AJB (DHB), 2012 WL 6 115382260, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2012). If the court determines a Rule 11 violation 7 || occurred, “the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party 8 || that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1) (emphasis 9 || added). 10 Although the Court ultimately granted Bosa’s motion to strike three exhibits it held 11 || were protected by a mediation privilege, the Court finds that sanctions are not warranted. 12 || While the Court agreed with Bosa’s interpretation of the mediation privilege, the Court 13 || finds that Liberty’s position did not lack evidentiary support. The Court further finds that 14 || Liberty’s motion was not based on frivolous arguments. 15 Bosa also argues Liberty’s motion for summary judgment lacked evidentiary support 16 since three of Liberty’s exhibits were stricken. (Doc. No. 118-1 at 31.) However, because 17 ||the Court did not reach the merits of Liberty’s summary judgment motion, but instead 18 |/ordered Liberty to re-file its motion without reference to the now-stricken exhibits, the 19 || Court cannot rule on the frivolousness, or lack thereof, of these arguments. 20 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Bosa’s motion for sanctions at this time. 21 (Doc. No. 118.) 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 |\Dated: August 14, 2019 © Ser : 24 Hon. Anthony J.Battaglia 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28