Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 JOE ESQUIVEL, individually and on Case No.: 3:25-cv-03229-AJB-VET behalf of all those similarly situated, 10 ORDER SANCTIONING PLAINTIFF Plaintiff, 11 FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT v. EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION 12 CONFERENCE I.C. SYSTEM, INC., 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 On June 17, 2026, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why he should not be 17 sanctioned for failing to appear at an Early Neutral Evaluation Conference (“ENE”) held 18 earlier that day. ECF No. 22. Plaintiff filed a timely response to the order to show cause 19 (“OSC”) and appeared at the July 1, 2026 OSC hearing. See ECF Nos. 24, 29. Based on 20 responses to the Court’s inquiries, the Court tentatively concluded that sanctions appeared 21 appropriate and requested additional briefing. ECF Nos. 27, 29. Plaintiff filed a 22 supplementary response on July 13, 2026. ECF No. 30. For the reasons set forth below, the 23 Court hereby SANCTIONS Plaintiff Joe Esquivel and DISCHARGES the Court’s June 24 17, 2026 OSC. 25 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 26 On April 28, 2026, the Court issued a Notice and Order Setting an ENE and Case 27 Management Conference (“CMC”) for June 17, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. before Magistrate Judge 28 Valerie E. Torres (“ENE/CMC Order”). ECF No. 17. The ENE/CMC Order required that 1 both lead counsel and party representatives participate in the ENE. Id. at 2. Plaintiff’s 2 counsel, upon receipt of the ENE/CMC Order, informed Plaintiff by phone call and text 3 message of the date of the ENE. ECF No. 29 at 4. Counsel also informed Plaintiff that his 4 presence at the ENE was required. Id. at 5. Plaintiff confirmed with his counsel that he 5 would attend. Id. at 4. 6 On June 12, 2026, the Court emailed Plaintiff’s counsel the instructions for joining 7 the ENE via videoconference. Plaintiff’s counsel forwarded the videoconference 8 information to Plaintiff, reaching out multiple times by text message and once by phone to 9 confirm that he would attend. Id. at 4–6. Plaintiff did not respond to his counsel’s 10 communications and counsel was not aware, prior to June 17, 2026, that Plaintiff was 11 unable to attend the ENE. Id. at 5–6. At no time prior to June 17, 2026 did Plaintiff seek to 12 continue the ENE due to his unavailability or otherwise request to be excused from 13 appearing at the ENE. 14 On June 17, 2026, the Court held the ENE as scheduled at 2:00 p.m. ECF No. 20. 15 Plaintiff’s counsel, Defendant’s counsel, and Defendant’s corporate representative 16 appeared. Id. Plaintiff did not appear and, while the Court and other parties waited, his 17 attorney made multiple unsuccessful attempts by various means to reach Plaintiff during 18 the ENE. ECF No. 22 at 2. After waiting for Plaintiff for more than twenty minutes, the 19 Court concluded the ENE and did not proceed with the CMC. Id. The Court reset the 20 ENE/CMC for June 30, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. and, later the same day, ordered Plaintiff to show 21 cause why he should not be sanctioned for failing to appear at the ENE. ECF Nos. 21, 22. 22 Five days later, on June 22, 2026, the parties jointly moved to dismiss this action without 23 prejudice. ECF No. 23. 24 On June 23, 2026, Plaintiff timely responded to the OSC. ECF No. 24. Plaintiff 25 admits that his attorneys informed him of the ENE set for June 17, 2026 and provided 26 Plaintiff with the videoconference instructions. Id. at 2. Plaintiff’s counsel further confirms 27 that Plaintiff knew he was required to attend the ENE. ECF No. 29 at 5. However, Plaintiff 28 indicates that he was “unable to attend the ENE due to circumstances beyond [his] control 1 in “the days leading up to and including the week of June 17, 2026.” ECF No. 24-1 at ¶ 3. 2 Those circumstances included not having access to a laptop and unexpected travel with his 3 wife because Plaintiff’s regular caregiver was not available during his wife’s pre-planned 4 travel and his wife was unwilling to leave him home alone. Id. Plaintiff also states that 5 medical conditions, including a rotator cuff injury and back issues, prevented him from 6 attending the ENE as he cannot “move freely,” travel independently, or attend court 7 proceedings without assistance. Id. at ¶¶ 3–5. Plaintiff’s response does not indicate that he 8 made any attempt to notify his attorney or communicate to the Court in any way that he 9 would not attend the ENE. See generally ECF No. 24. Nor does Plaintiff suggest that his 10 attorneys were aware of the circumstances that caused him not to attend the ENE. See 11 generally id. 12 Plaintiff then appeared at the July 1, 2026 OSC hearing. See ECF No. 29 at 2–3. At 13 that time, Plaintiff’s counsel represented to the Court that (i) he informed Plaintiff of the 14 ENE prior to June 17, 2026, (ii) Plaintiff understood his presence at the ENE was required, 15 and (iii) Plaintiff’s counsel had no prior notice of Plaintiff’s inability or decision not to 16 attend the ENE. Id. at 3–12. The Court tentatively found that sanctions against Plaintiff 17 were appropriate and gave Plaintiff leave to file a supplementary response regarding his 18 ability to pay a monetary sanction. Id. at 12; ECF No. 27. 19 Plaintiff filed his supplementary response on July 13, 2026. ECF No. 30. Plaintiff 20 explains that he is unemployed and disabled and that his sole source of income is Social 21 Security Disability Insurance in the amount of $1,571.00 per month. Id. at 2–3. He receives 22 additional benefits in the form of $21.00 per month in CalFresh food assistance and medical 23 services through Medicare. Id. at 3. As of July 7, 2026, his sole bank account contained 24 approximately $20.00 and he has no additional savings, investments, or assets. Id. He does 25 not elaborate on his family’s resources, including his spouse, or any monthly expenses. See 26 generally id. Given his financial situation, Plaintiff argues that even a modest monetary 27 sanction “would impose a genuine hardship on [him] and [] draw against funds required 28 for his minimum living needs.” Id. at 4. 1 II. LEGAL STANDARD 2 A pretrial order “is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be 3 cavalierly disregarded . . . without peril.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 4 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992); Martin Family Tr. v. NECO, 186 F.R.D. 601, 604 (E.D. Cal. 5 1999) (litigants have “unflagging duty to comply with clearly communicated case- 6 management orders”). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f),1 the Court may 7 issue “any just orders,” including those authorized by Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(vii), if a party 8 or its attorney fails to “appear at a scheduling or other pretrial conference” or “obey a 9 scheduling or other pretrial order.” Fed. R. Civ. P 16(f)(1); see also CivLR 83.1 10 (authorizing “any and all sanctions authorized by statute or rule within the inherent power 11 of the Court” for the failure of any party to comply with “any order of the Court”); J. Torres 12 Civ. Chambers R. III.B (“If any of the required representatives for the parties fail to appear 13 at the ENE/CMC, the Court will issue an Order to Show Cause to determine whether 14 sanctions are appropriate.”). A pretrial conference under Rule 16 includes a settlement 15 conference. See Ayers v. Richmond, 895 F.2d 1267, 1270 (9th Cir. 1990) (explaining that 16 a conference before trial under Rule 16(a) includes a conference for the purpose of 17 “facilitating the settlement of the case” and affirming sanctioning of attorney for his failure 18 to appear at a settlement conference); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(a)(5). “A court fine is 19 among the ‘just orders’ contemplated as a sanction by the rule.” Kelley v. S. Capital Fin. 20 Grp., LLC, No. 22-cv-01708-ART-NJK, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107594, at *2 (D. Nev. 21 June 17, 2024). 22 “[V]iolations of Federal Rule 16 are neither technical nor trivial” because they 23 “involve a matter most critical to the court itself: management of its docket and avoidance 24 of unnecessary delays in the administration of its cases.” Juneau v. Subaru of Am., Inc., 25 No. 23-cv-614-DMS-KSC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182071, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2023). 26 27 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all references to a “Rule” are to the Federal Rules of Civil 28 1 It is clear that “the rule is broadly remedial and its purpose is to encourage forceful judicial 2 management.” Sherman v. United States, 801 F.2d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 1986). Moreover, 3 sanctions under Rule 16(f) are appropriate even when the disobedience is unintentional. 4 Lucas Auto. Eng’g, Inc. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 275 F.3d 762, 769 (9th Cir. 2001); 5 see also Juneau, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182071, at *6 (“Sanctions are still within the 6 Court’s discretion even if the sanctioned party offers up an excuse and the failure to appear 7 at a hearing is not intentional.”). 8 “Imposition of sanctions under Rule 16(f) requires notice and an opportunity to be 9 heard.” Ayers, 895 F.2d at 1270; see also Miller v. City of Los Angeles, 661 F.3d 1024, 10 1030 (9th Cir. 2011) (collecting cases and holding that additional process is necessary only 11 where sanction is “sufficiently serious,” generally, at least $5,000). An award of sanctions 12 under Rule 16(f) is within the court’s discretion. Ayers, 895 F.2d at 1269. 13 III. DISCUSSION 14 The ENE/CMC Order is clear that the Court required all parties and lead counsel to 15 attend the June 17, 2026 ENE and be prepared to explore settlement. ECF No. 17 at 2–3. 16 Moreover, there is no dispute that Plaintiff received notice of the ENE when the Court 17 issued the ENE/CMC Order and understood that the Court required his attendance at the 18 ENE. Thus, Plaintiff was aware of the ENE and the requirement that he attend several 19 weeks prior to June 17, 2026. Plaintiff’s counsel also reminded Plaintiff of the upcoming 20 ENE at least a few days prior to June 17, 2026, when counsel forwarded Plaintiff the 21 Court’s videoconference instructions. ECF No. 29 at 4–6. Plaintiff did not respond to this 22 final communication, nor did he respond to his attorney’s communications during the ENE 23 while the Court and other parties waited for him to appear. 24 Plaintiff points to unexpected travel or medical circumstances to excuse his failure 25 to appear, but his response confirms that these events or issues were occurring and/or 26 present in the days leading up to June 17, 2026. This means Plaintiff had ample 27 opportunity, prior to June 17, 2026, to communicate with his attorney and/or notify the 28 Court that he was unable to attend the ENE. If Plaintiff had timely sought relief from the 1 Court’s ENE/CMC Order, the Court might have reset the ENE or excused him from 2 appearing. Instead, Plaintiff did nothing, and he provides no explanation as to why he made 3 no effort to seek timely relief or even inform or respond to communication from his 4 attorney. 5 Plaintiff’s non-compliance disrupted the Court’s management of its docket, caused 6 unnecessary delays in the administration of this case, and wasted the Court’s and 7 Defendant’s resources, who prepared for and appeared at the ENE. Plaintiff’s failure to 8 comply with court orders is also troubling given that he elected to pursue this case as a 9 class action. ECF No. 1 at 1. As such, Plaintiff has fiduciary obligations to the putative 10 class as the class representative and thus risks harming the interests of the class through his 11 conduct. Joffe v. Google, Inc., 21 F.4th 1102, 1122 (9th Cir. 2021) (class representatives 12 have fiduciary duty to members of class); Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1) (class representatives 13 must “fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class” as a prerequisite to class 14 certification). It is equally troubling that mere days after the Court issued the OSC, Plaintiff 15 agreed to dismiss this case, see ECF No. 23, and then relied on the stipulated dismissal to 16 argue that the OSC was moot, see ECF No. 24 at 3. If Plaintiff did not intend to pursue this 17 litigation, his failure to appear at the ENE is even more egregious and wasteful in terms of 18 unnecessarily consuming the Court’s and Defendant’s time and resources. Moreover, a 19 party cannot avoid sanctions by simply dismissing an action. 20 In sum, based on Plaintiff’s responses to the OSC and the representations made at 21 the OSC hearing, the Court finds that Plaintiff does not show cause for his failure both 22 appear at the June 17, 2026 ENE and comply with the Court’s ENE/CMC Order. This 23 failure warrants sanctions. In terms of the appropriate sanction, the Court concludes that a 24 court fine of $50.00 is appropriate. While the Court is sensitive to Plaintiff’s economic 25 circumstances, Plaintiff made no effort to attend the ENE or timely seek relief, failed to 26 explain why he did not seek relief, and then seemingly sought to avoid sanctions by 27 dismissing this action. Under these circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the modest 28 fine ordered herein is necessary and proper. l Lastly, under Rule 16(f), the Court “must order the party, its attorney, or both to pay 2 ||the reasonable expenses—including attorneys fees—incurred because of any 3 ||noncompliance . . . unless the noncompliance was substantially justified or other 4 ||circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(2). Here, 5 || Defendant does not seek an award of costs or fees and has not participated in the OSC 6 || proceedings. See, e.g., ECF No. 29 at 2 (Defendant did not appear at OSC hearing). 7 Furthermore, Defendant jointly moved with Plaintiff to dismiss this case. ECF No. 23 at 1. 8 || Thus, based on the current posture of the case, the Court finds that an award of costs/fees 9 ||is neither necessary nor appropriate. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f). 10 CONCLUSION 1] Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows: 12 1. The Court DISCHARGES the June 17, 2026 Order to Show Cause. ECF No. 22. 13 2. The Court SANCTIONS Plaintiff Joe Esquivel in the amount of $50.00 pursuant 14 || to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f) and Local Rule 83.1. 15 a. On or before September 8, 2026, Plaintiff SHALL submit payment in the 16 ||amount of $50.00 as a court fine to the Miscellaneous Fines, Penalties and Forfeitures, Not 17 || Otherwise Classified fund of the United States Treasury via a check made payable to 18 “Clerk, U.S. District Court.” See CivLR 83.1(b). Plaintiff must either mail the check to 19 ||“Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, Financial 20 || Department, 333 West Broadway, Room 420, San Diego, CA 92101” or pay in person at 21 || the Clerk’s Office on the fourth floor of the Carter/Keep U.S. Courthouse. Should Plaintiff 22 to send the check by mail, he must include “Case No. 3:25-cv-03229-AJB-VET” on 23 memo line of the check. 24 b. Plaintiff SHALL file proof of payment within five days of payment. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. | ! ‘ SK 26 Dated: July 22, 2026 17 Hon. Valerie E. Torres United States Magistrate Judge 28