Russo v. County of San Diego

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: May 4, 2023
• Docket: 3:18-cv-01837-TWR-MDD
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TONINO RUSSO, Case No.: 18-CV-1837 TWR (MDD)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER (1) GRANTING 13 v. DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION, AND (2) DIRECTING THE 14 CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER 15 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; LISA JUDGMENT AGAINST PLAINTIFF RAMIREZ; HUGH DAVIDSON; and IN THE AMOUNT OF $40,227.25 16 DOES 2–10, 17 (ECF Nos. 184, 188) Defendants. 18

19 Presently before the Court is Defendants County of San Diego, Lisa Ramirez, and 20 Hugh Davidson’s Motion for Order Directing the Clerk to Add Sanctions Amount to 21 Judgment; or Otherwise Alter or Amend Judgment to Include Sanctions Previously 22 Ordered (“Mot.,” ECF No. 188), as well as Plaintiff Tonino Russo’s Notice of Non- 23 Opposition re: Motion for Order Directing the Clerk to Add Sanctions Amount to 24 Judgment. (See ECF No. 192.) As Defendants note, (see Mot. at 2), “[u]nder state law, a 25 sanctions order is enforceable in the same way as a money judgment.” Leads Club, Inc. v. 26 Peterson, No. CIV. 05CV1717-J JMA, 2008 WL 186504, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2008) 27 (citing Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 680.230, 680.270, 699.510; Newland v. Super. Ct., 40 Cal. 28 App. 4th 608, 615 (1995)). Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 1 58(b)(1)(B) and 59(e), the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion and DIRECTS the Clerk 2 ||of Court to enter judgment against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendants in the amount of 3 $40,227.25, which represents the remaining amount of sanctions owed by Plaintiff to 4 || Defendants pursuant to the Court’s January 19, 2023 Order Granting in Part and Denying 5 Part Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions. See Leads Club, 2008 WL 186504, at *3. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: May 4, 2023 [5 14 bre 9 Honorable Todd W. Robinson United States District Judge 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28