Russo v. County of San Diego
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Todd W. Robinson (author)
Analysis
Defendants moved to direct the Clerk to add a previously ordered sanctions amount to the judgment, and the plaintiff did not oppose the motion. The court granted the motion and directed the entry of judgment against the plaintiff in the amount of $40,227.25.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Defendants' Motion for Order Directing the Clerk to Add Sanctions Amount to Judgment“Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 58(b)(1)(B) and 59(e), the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendants in the amount of $40,227.25” | agree with court The court correctly applied Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 58(b)(1)(B) and 59(e) to incorporate the previously ordered sanctions into the final judgment. The order relies on the premise that sanctions are enforceable as money judgments, a principle supported by the cited state law authorities. Since the plaintiff did not oppose the motion and the amount reflects a prior court order, the decision follows logically from the procedural rules and the record. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the relevant Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (58(b)(1)(B) and 59(e)) for altering or amending a judgment to include sanctions. It supports the enforceability of the sanctions as a money judgment with appropriate case law. The lack of opposition from the plaintiff simplifies the procedural posture, and the court's reliance on its own prior order for the specific amount is appropriate.
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
Cites, in this corpus
- Wright v. Oroville Gold, Silver, & Copper Mining Co. No. 2,099 · 1870-10-15