Stark v. GG Homes, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- John A. Houston (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Collette Stark moved for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and to strike Defendants' motion for an extension of time to file an answer, arguing the motion was an improper initial pleading. The Court denied both motions, finding no bad faith or recklessness in the Defendants' request for an extension and noting that the motion was properly filed under Rule 6 and CivLR 12.1.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927 is DENIED.“Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions is DENIED” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Ninth Circuit standard that § 1927 sanctions require a finding of bad faith or recklessness. The court found that the defendants' request for an extension to explore early resolution did not objectively constitute unreasonable or vexatious multiplication of proceedings. This is a reasonable factual determination based on the record recited in the order. |
Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants’ initial pleading is DENIED.“Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants’ initial pleading is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the defendants' filing was a motion for an extension of time pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 and CivLR 12.1, not an initial pleading or answer. The court noted that the plaintiff failed to provide authority for her contention that the motion should be treated as an answer. The denial follows from the procedural nature of the filing. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the high threshold for § 1927 sanctions and applies it to the specific facts that the defendants sought an extension to explore settlement. It also correctly distinguishes a motion for extension of time from an initial pleading. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for the procedural posture.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 COLLETTE STARK, an individual, Case No.: 20cv1913-JAH 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION FOR SANCTIONS [Doc. No. 9] 14 GG HOMES, INC., a California Corporation; and PAUL GREEN, an 15 individual, 16 Defendant. 17 18 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Collette Stark’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for 19 Sanctions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927 against Defendants GG Homes, Inc. and Paul 20 Green (“Defendants”) and Motion to Strike Defendants’ initial motion for extension of 21 time to file an answer [Doc. No. 3]. See Doc. No. 9. 22 28 U.S.C. § 1927 provides: “Any attorney . . . who so multiplies the proceedings in 23 any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally 24 the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred because of such 25 conduct.” Sanctions under § 1927 must be supported by a finding of bad faith or 26 recklessness. Lahiri v. Universal Music & Video Distrib. Corp., 606 F.3d 1216, 1219 (9th 27 Cir. 2010); In re Keegan Mgmt. Co., Sec. Litig., 78 F.3d 431, 436 (9th Cir. 1996). “Bad 28 1 || faith is present when an attorney knowingly or recklessly raises a frivolous argument, or 2 argues a meritorious claim for the purpose of harassing an opponent.” Jd. The bad faith 3 ||requirement sets a high threshold. Primus Auto. Fin. Servs. v. Batarse, 115 F.3d 644, 649 4 Cir. 1997). Sanctions under § 1927 are also available for “recklessness when 5 ||combined with an additional factor such as frivolousness, harassment, or an improper 6 || purpose.” Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 994 (9th Cir. 2001). 7 Based on Plaintiff’s motion and all papers filed in connection therewith, the Court 8 make no such finding of bad faith actions by the Defendants to merit the imposition of 9 ||sanctions against Defendants. Before petitioning the Court, Defendants first asked for 10 || Plaintiff's agreement to extend the deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s complaint “in order to 11 |}explore early resolution.” See Doc. No. 3-4. Taken objectively, such a request does not 12 || unreasonably or vexatiously multiply the proceedings. Therefore, the Court finds no basis 13 sanction Defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. 14 Additionally, Defendants properly moved for extension of time to file pursuant to 15 || Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 6 and CivLR 12.1, and this Court granted Defendants’ motion. See 16 ||Doc. Nos. 3, 8. Plaintiff offers no authority to support her contention that Defendants’ 17 ||motion for extension of time should be considered Defendants’ initial pleading and 18 || Answer. 19 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 20 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions is DENIED; and 21 2. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants’ initial pleading is DENIED. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 ||DATED: _ February 4, 2021 25 26 JQHN A. HOUSTON NITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28