Nguyen v. Saul

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TAM PHAN NGUYEN, Case No.: 20-CV-2391-WVG

12 Plaintiff, ORDER FOLLOWING ORDER TO 13 v. SHOW CAUSE CONFERENCE 14 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 17

18 19 On April 21, 2022, this Court convened a Video Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) 20 Conference pursuant to its April 12, 2022 Order. (Doc. No. 22.) Alexandra Manbeck 21 appeared for Plaintiff. Sharon Lahey appeared for Defendant. The OSC Conference 22 resulted after Plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File the Joint 23 Motion and to Comply with the Court’s December 22, 2021 Scheduling Order (“Ex Parte 24 Application”). (Doc. No. 16.) Plaintiff filed the Ex Parte Application without providing 25 notice to Chambers in violation of this Court’s Civil Chambers Rule VI. (Id.) Moreover, 26 the Ex Parte Application revealed both Plaintiff and Defendant unilaterally modified 27 deadlines the Court set in the operative December 22, 2021 Scheduling Order without leave 28 of court. (Doc. No. 13.) The Court held the OSC Conference to provide the Parties the 1 opportunity to explain why sanctions should not issue for their non-compliance. Having 2 heard from counsel, the Court declines to impose sanctions and ORDERS the Parties to 3 file their Joint Motion for Judicial Review no later than tomorrow, April 22, 2022. The 4 Court elaborates below. 5 Courts “unquestionably” possess the inherent power to assess sanctions for 6 disobedience of a court order. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 7 240, 258-59 (1975); Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 45 (1991). This District’s 8 Civil Local Rule 83.1 emphasizes the point in providing that non-compliance with court 9 orders, the Local Rules, or the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure may be 10 grounds for the Court to impose “any and all sanctions… including, without limitation, 11 dismissal of any actions, entry of default, finding of contempt, imposition of monetary 12 sanctions or attorneys’ fees and costs, and other lesser sanctions. Civ. L.R. 83.1(a)-(b). 13 “When choosing among possible sanctions, the court should consider a sanction designed 14 to: (1) penalize those whose conduct may be deemed to warrant such a sanction; (2) deter 15 parties from engaging in the sanctioned conduct; (3) place the risk of an erroneous 16 judgment on the party who wrongfully created the risk; and (4) restore a prejudiced party 17 to the same position he or she would have been in absent the wrongdoing.” Robinson v. 18 City of San Diego, 2013 WL 525679, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2013) (citing Palmer v. 19 Stassinos, 2007 WL 2288119, 3 (N.D. Cal. Aug.6, 2007).). 20 As a foundational matter, there is no dispute counsel for the Parties violated the 21 Court’s December 22, 2021 Order and that Plaintiff compounded his non-compliance by 22 failing to meet Civil Chambers Rule VI’s notice requirement in connection with the Ex 23 Parte Application. During the OSC Conference, both Ms. Manbeck and Ms. Lahey 24 conceded the same. Ms. Manbeck explained she was ignorant of the applicable rules. Ms. 25 Lahey admitted her familiarity with the rules but explained she felt compelled to 26 unilaterally continue Defendant’s April 1, 2022 deadline to serve its portions of the Joint 27 Motion for Judicial Review as a result of Plaintiff’s unilateral decision to continue his 28 February 18, 2022 deadline to serve his portions of the Joint Motion for Judicial Review. 1 || Both Ms. Manbeck and Ms. Lahey asked for the Court’s forgiveness and requested that 2 sanctions not issue. 3 Counsel’s non-compliance abounds and warrants the imposition of sanctions. As 4 || discussed during the OSC Conference, counsel’s missteps here were not insignificant. At 5 || all times, the Court is responsible for managing its case load, which includes, but certainly 6 ||is not limited to, the instant action. Counsel’s substitution of their judgment for the Court’s 7 || as it concerns the operative Scheduling Order has a cascading effect upon the other matters 8 ||set before the Court, which are no less important than this action. Equally notable, the 9 deadlines the Court sets are not suggestions; they control how and when litigation is to 10 ||move forward until it is disposed of. Treating these deadlines as afterthoughts — like 11 |/counsel did here — not only hampers the instant action’s progression but also undermines 12 ||the Court’s authority and responsibility to manage cases effectively and efficiently. The 13 Court rejects any such attempts to usurp its province and undermine litigants’ standing 14 || before the Court. 15 In so saying, the Court finds counsel for both Plaintiff and Defendant have come to 16 || appreciate the gravity of their misconduct, particularly in light of their discourse with the 17 ||Court during the OSC Conference. Accordingly, the Court accepts Ms. Manbeck and Ms. 18 Lahey’s appeals for mercy and will spare both from sanctions. To that end, the Court 19 ||} ORDERS the Parties to file their Joint Motion for Judicial Review on or before April 22, 20 |/2022 and impresses upon counsel their urgent need to course correct to avoid the 21 ||imposition of sanctions for any future non-compliance with the applicable rules, including, 22 || but certainly not limited to, this Court’s Orders and Civil Chambers Rules. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 ||DATED: April 21, 2022 25 | | Se 26 Hon. William V. Gallo 27 United States Magistrate Judge 28