Ewing v. Premium Merchant Funding One, LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff's motion for sanctions seeking to hold defense counsel in contempt for allegedly disobeying court orders. The court denied the motion, finding that Plaintiff failed to present new facts warranting reconsideration of a prior denial and that the conduct did not warrant contempt sanctions.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Plaintiff's Motion Requesting Sanctions Pursuant to Court’s Inherent Power to Maintain Respect for Its Orders is denied.“Motion is therefore DENIED.” | agree with court The court applied the correct legal standard for contempt (discretionary, requiring bad faith or willful disobedience) and correctly noted that the plaintiff failed to meet the procedural requirement for reconsideration (CivLR 7.1.1) by not establishing new facts. The decision is consistent with the prior order (Dkt. No. 79) and the cited authorities. |
Plaintiff is directed to file a written motion for recusal by March 8, 2023, if they believe grounds exist.“To the extent Plaintiff believes there are any grounds warrant the undersigned’s recusal in this case, plaintiff must file a written motion raising any such grounds by not later than March 8, 2023.” | agree with court The court addressed a collateral issue raised in the motion regarding its prior involvement in a criminal case. By clarifying its lack of involvement and setting a deadline for a formal recusal motion, the court properly managed the procedural posture of the case. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the discretionary nature of contempt sanctions and the specific factors required (bad faith/willful disobedience). It properly applies the local rule regarding reconsideration (CivLR 7.1.1) to deny the motion due to the lack of new facts. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural denial based on prior findings.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTON EWING, Case No.: 22-cv-215-JO-DDL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 14 15 PREMIUM MERCHANT FUNDING [Dkt. No. 82] ONE, LLC, 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting Sanctions Pursuant to Court’s 20 Inherent Power to Maintain Respect for Its Orders (the “Motion”). Dkt. No. 82. Plaintiff 21 moves the Court to order Defendant’s counsel, Zachary Frampton, to show cause why he 22 should not be held in contempt. Id. at 2. 23 Whether to hold a party in contempt is a matter of the Court’s discretion. See Hallett 24 v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 749 (9th Cir. 2002). Among the factors the Court considers is 25 whether the party against whom contempt sanctions are sought has acted in bad faith or 26 willfully disobeyed an order of the Court. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 45 27 (1991). The Court previously declined to issue an order to show cause why defense counsel 28 should not be held in contempt, finding that defense counsel’s conduct did not warrant 1 |}contempt sanctions. Dkt. No. 79. The Court finds that plaintiff has not established any 2 ||new facts to warrant the Court’s reconsideration of its earlier determination, see CivLR 3 7.1.1., and in its discretion the Court again declines to impose contempt sanctions, or to 4 || order Defendant’s counsel to show cause why he should not be held in contempt. □□□□□□□□□□□ 5 || Motion is therefore DENIED. 6 Plaintiff's Motion raises the issue whether the undersigned was involved with or 7 || oversaw the prosecution in United States v. Bell, et al., 09-cr-1209-LAB. Dkt. No. 82-1 at 8 ||7n.10. The undersigned was not the Criminal Chief in the United States Attorney’s Office 9 the Southern District of California when that case was pending, and the undersigned 10 || had no involvement with the case. To the extent Plaintiff believes there are any grounds 11 warrant the undersigned’s recusal in this case, plaintiff must file a written motion 12 |/raising any such grounds by not later than March 8, 2023. 13 |} IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 || Dated: February 22, 2023 aie 15 Tbe! hho we 17 United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28