Olfati v. City of Sacramento

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 18, 2025
• Docket: 2:23-cv-02547
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PARVIN OLFATI, Case No. 2:23-cv-2547-JDP 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Parvin Olfati filed a civil rights complaint against the City of Sacramento, 19 various Sacramento police officers, and several of plaintiff’s neighbors, alleging violations of her 20 First and Fourth Amendment rights. Before the court ruled on defendant O’Brien’s, defendant 21 Maviglio’s, and defendants Andres and Taylor’s separate motions to dismiss, O’Brien filed a 22 motion for sanction, and plaintiff filed two motions for sanctions against O’Brien. In light of the 23 court’s recent order denying the motions to dismiss without prejudice, and plaintiff’s filing of an 24 amended complaint, the pending motions for sanctions are denied. 25 Under Rule 11, sanctions may be imposed “when a filing is frivolous, legally 26 unreasonable, or without factual foundation, or is brought for an improper purpose.” Estate of 27 Blue v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 120 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 1997). “The standard governing both 28 the ‘improper purpose’ and ‘frivolous’ inquiries is objective.” G.C. & K.B. Invs., Inc. v. Wilson, 1 326 F.3d 1096, 1109 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 929 F.2d 2 1358, 1362 (9th Cir. 1990) (en banc)). “When, as here, a complaint is the primary focus of Rule 3 11 proceedings, a district court must conduct a two-prong inquiry to determine (1) whether the 4 complaint is legally or factually baseless from an objective perspective, and (2) if the attorney has 5 conducted a reasonable and competent inquiry before signing and filing it.” Holgate v. Baldwin, 6 425 F.3d 671, 676 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Cases warranting the impositions of 7 sanctions for frivolous complaints are “rare and exceptional.” Operating Eng’rs Pension Tr. v. A- 8 C Co., 859 F.2d 1336, 1344 (9th Cir. 1988). 9 O’Brien argues that plaintiff should be sanctioned for filing a frivolous complaint. ECF 10 No. 50. While the complaint’s pleadings were not a model of clarity, for the reasons stated in the 11 court’s prior order denying the motions to dismiss, the complaint was not entirely baseless. If it 12 were, the court would have dismissed the complaint without leave to amend. See ECF No. 63. 13 Accordingly, the court declines to impose sanctions based on plaintiff’s complaint. See Cal. 14 Architectural Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. Franciscan Ceramics, Inc., 818 F.2d 1466, 1472 (9th Cir. 15 1987) (“Although [the plaintiff] ultimately failed to adduce substantial support for the complaint, 16 the suit was not so baseless that sanctions ought to be imposed.”). 17 Plaintiff argues that O’Brien’s motion to dismiss, reply to plaintiff’s opposition to the 18 motion to dismiss, and motion for sanctions violate Rule 11. ECF Nos. 52 & 59. For the 19 equivalent reason as noted above—because O’Brien’s motion to dismiss was successful— 20 plaintiff’s argument that the motion and reply contained sanctionable material is unsubstantiated. 21 Plaintiff’s other argument that O’Brien’s motion for sanction is sanctionable is equally 22 unjustified. 23 As an aside to the parties, the court frowns upon tit for tat motions and implores the 24 parties to meet and confer in an attempt to resolve avoidable motions, such as these, in the future. 25 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 26 1. Defendant O’Brien’s motion for sanctions, ECF No. 50, is DENIED. 27 2. Plaintiff’s motions for sanctions, ECF Nos. 52 & 59, are DENIED. 28 1 > IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 ( | { Wine Dated: _ March 18, 2025 Q_——_. 4 JEREMY D. PETERSON 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28