(PS) Banga v. Ameriprise Auto & Home Ins. Agency

Opinion

KAMLESH BANGA, No. 2:18-cv-01072 MCE AC PS Plaintiff, v. ORDER INSURANCE AGENCY and IDS COMPANY, Defendants.

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and the case was accordingly referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 302(c)(21). Pending before the court are plaintiff’s motions for sanctions. ECF Nos. 169, 173, 174.1 Defendants have requested an extension of time to oppose the initial sanctions motion. ECF No. 170. That motion is GRANTED, and all papers have been considered. Plaintiff’s motions for sanctions (ECF Nos. 169, 173, 174) are DENIED for the reasons explained below. I. Relevant Procedural Background This action stems from a dispute over insurance coverage for alleged damage to plaintiff’s 1 It appears that ECF No. 174 was intended to replace the earlier filed motions, but out of an abundance of caution, the court reviewed all three motions and rules on each. home caused by a windstorm on January 18, 2016. Revised Third Amended Complaint (“RTAC”), ECF No. 67-3 at 1. Plaintiff sued Ameriprise in state court on January 18, 2018, and Ameriprise removed the action to this court based upon diversity of citizenship (28 U.S.C. § 1332). Id. IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company was added as a co-defendant. Id. Plaintiff brings multiple claims against defendant insurers, including breach of contract, bad faith, unfair & unlawful business practices under California’s Unfair Competition Law, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress. Id. at 10-21. Discovery in this case concluded in March of 2021. ECF Nos. 91, 117. Both defendants moved for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 124, 125. On November 15, 2021, the undersigned recommended that summary judgment be granted in favor of defendants on all claims, and that this case be closed. ECF No. 162. Plaintiff objected to the findings and recommendations. ECF Nos. 164, 165. The findings and recommendations remain pending before the district judge assigned to this case. In December of 2021 and January of 2022, plaintiff filed the Rule 11 sanctions motions that are under consideration here. ECF No. 174, 163 and 169. Defendants oppose each noticed motion for sanctions. ECF Nos. 176, 177. II. Standard for Sanctions Motion Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and Local Rule 110 allow the court to issue sanctions in the event of party or attorney misconduct. District courts retain broad discretion to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions, including where appropriate, default or dismissal.” Adams v. California Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) (brackets in original) (quoting Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam). III. Analysis Plaintiff’s motions for sanctions allege that defendants made various factual misrepresentations in their motions for summary judgment. See, e.g., ECF No. 174-1 at 6 (“IDS and its counsels violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (‘Rule 11’) by repeatedly misrepresenting to the Court that Plaintiff’s Revised Third Amended Complaint was barred by one year suit limitations because on April 26, 2016, IDS unequivocally denied Plaintiffs claim for damage to the roof and as of that date, IDS denied Banga’s claim for damage to her roof and this case should be closed.”) The undersigned has reviewed plaintiff's motions and defendants’ oppositions and finds that the motions attempt to re-litigate the summary judgment motions. The undersigned finds no concrete evidence of fraud upon the court or misrepresentations of fact, and therefore declines to issue sanctions. The findings and recommendations on the motions for summary judgment remain pending. IV. Conclusion For the reasons explained above, plaintiff's motions for sanctions (ECF Nos. 169, 173, and 174) are DENIED. Defendants’ motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 170) is GRANTED. DATED: February 9, 2022 ~ Chttien— Chane ALLISON CLAIRE Id UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE