Reed v. Paramo

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: February 22, 2021
• Docket: 3:18-cv-00361
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MYCHAL ANDRA REED, Case No.: 18-cv-00361-JLS (DEB)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS [DKT. NO. 218]; AND RESETTING 14 DANIEL PARAMO, et al., MANDATORY SETTLEMENT 15 Defendants. CONFERENCE 16 17 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions against Defendants. 18 Dkt. No. 218. Plaintiff contends that the Court should sanction Defendants because: 19 (1) they failed to arrange accommodations for two scheduled settlement conferences; (2) 20 Defendants’ failure inconvenienced the Court; (3) if Plaintiff caused similar delays, he 21 believes the Court would sanction Plaintiff; and (4) Plaintiff had to forego two days of 22 library time for the scheduled settlement conferences. Id. at 1–4. For the reasons discussed 23 below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions and RESETS the Mandatory 24 Settlement Conference (“MSC”) for March 16, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. 25 A court has the inherent power to sanction a party or its attorney for “abusive 26 litigation practices.” Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 765 (1980). “In the 27 Ninth Circuit, sanctions are appropriate only in extreme circumstances and where the 28 violation is due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault of the party.” Fair Housing of Marin v. 1 || Combs, 285 F.3d 899, 905 (9th Cir. 2002) (quotation marks omitted) (affirming district 2 ||court’s imposition of sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 where party “continued to 3 || violate court orders despite multiple warnings” and prejudiced the opposing side). 4 The Court will not assert its inherent authority to sanction Defendants and finds no 5 ||extreme circumstances warranting sanctions. There is no evidence Defendants acted 6 || willfully or in bad faith to delay the MSC. To the contrary, the failure of the 7 accommodations prejudiced both parties equally. Defendants have now arranged different 8 || accommodations for Plaintiff to participate in a future settlement conference. Dkt. No. 219. 9 Accordingly, the Court orders as follows: 10 1. Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions against Defendants (Dkt. No. 218) is 11 || DENIED; 12 2. The MSC is RESET for March 16, 2021 at 9:00 a.m.; and 13 3. Defendants must file a status report on or before March 9, 2021 updating the 14 || Court on the viability of their proposed accommodations. See Dkt. No. 219 at 2. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: February 22, 2021 — Dando oa 18 Honorable Daniel E. Butcher United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28