Estate of Ronnie Kong v. City of San Diego
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pattern of repeated failures by Plaintiffs' counsel to comply with court orders, local rules, and a mandatory appearance at a status hearing. The court imposed a $500 monetary sanction on the attorney personally and set a future hearing to determine if terminating sanctions, such as dismissal, are warranted.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Imposition of $500 monetary sanction against Plaintiffs' counsel“A fine of $500 is ordered to be paid by Andrew Kim. The sanction is to be paid by counsel personally and shall not be charged to his clients.” | agree with court The court relied on its inherent authority to impose sanctions for failure to comply with orders and local rules. The record recites multiple instances of non-compliance, including ignoring deadlines and failing to appear at a mandatory hearing. The sanction is modest and directed at the attorney personally, which is consistent with the goal of deterring misconduct and protecting the court's docket control. |
Setting of status hearing regarding terminating sanctions“the Court shall hold a second Status conference on January 5, 2024, to discuss terminating sanctions.” | agree with court The court identified a 'repeated failure to effectively prosecute' and cited authority supporting the power to dismiss or default. Setting a hearing to discuss terminating sanctions is a procedural step to ensure due process before imposing the most severe sanction (dismissal). |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It clearly identifies the specific misconduct (failure to serve, failure to file FAC on time, failure to comply with Local Rule 15.1(c), and failure to appear at a mandatory hearing). It cites the correct legal basis (inherent authority) and appropriate precedent from the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit. The sanctions imposed are proportional to the misconduct and the court provides a clear path for the attorney to cure the issue or face dismissal.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ESTATE OF RONNIE KONG, by and Case No. 22-cv-1858-BAS-DDL through successor in interest, Touch 12 Kong; TOUCH KONG, an individual, ORDER: 13 (1) IMPOSING MONETARY Plaintiffs, SANCTIONS, 14 v. (2) SETTING STATUS 15 HEARING RE: CITY OF SAN DIEGO; SAN DIEGO TERMINATING SANCTIONS 16 POLICE DEPARTMENT; ANDREW CAMPBELL; CHRISTOPHER LUTH; 17 and TONY MARASCHIELLO, 18 Defendants. 19 20 On November 28, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the Complaint in this action. (ECF No. 1.) 21 On February 14, 2023, Counsel substituted in to represent Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 4.) When 22 Counsel failed to arrange for the Complaint to be served in a timely manner, the Court 23 issued an Order to Show Cause as to why the case should not be dismissed for a failure to 24 prosecute and a failure to timely serve pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil 25 Procedure. (ECF No. 5.) The Court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause no later than March 26 20, 2023, as to why the case should not be dismissed. Counsel ignored this Court’s 27 order. Instead, two weeks later, on April 4, 2023, Counsel filed a proof of summons. 28 (ECF No. 6.) 1 On August 2, 2023, the Court granted Defendants’ partial motion to dismiss, but 2 gave Plaintiffs leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) no later than September 3 10, 2023. (ECF No. 10.) At the request of Plaintiffs’ Counsel, the Court extended the 4 deadline for Plaintiffs’ Counsel to file a FAC to October 24, 2023. (ECF No. 12.) Counsel 5 ignored this deadline. Instead, two weeks after the deadline, Counsel filed a FAC. (ECF 6 No. 14.) 7 The FAC failed to comply with the Court’s Local Rules, requiring that an amended 8 complaint be “accompanied by a version of that pleading that shows—through redlining, 9 underlining, strikeouts or other similarly effective typographic methods—how that 10 pleading differs from the previously dismissed pleading.” Civ. L.R. 15.1(c). Hence, the 11 Court ordered Plaintiffs’ Counsel to re-file the FAC, accompanied by an appropriate 12 redlined pleading by November 27, 2023. (ECF No. 16.) Again, Counsel ignored the 13 Court’s order. Therefore, the Court set a Status hearing for today, December 18, 2023, at 14 3:00 p.m., ordering Counsel for Plaintiffs to appear and “show cause as to why a monetary 15 sanction should not issue for repeatedly ignoring the Court’s orders.” (ECF Nos. 17–18.) 16 Counsel has again ignored this Court’s order. At 3:00 p.m. today, December 18, 17 2023, the Court called this matter. Although not required to appear, Counsel for 18 Defendants was present and ready to represent his clients. In contrast, Counsel for 19 Plaintiffs, who was required to appear, was nowhere to be found. 20 Consequently, the Court hereby imposes monetary sanctions on counsel of record 21 for Plaintiffs, based on his failure to comply with this Court’s orders and the rules of this 22 district. The Court orders these sanctions pursuant to its inherent authority. See Chambers 23 v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 42–43 (1991) (recognizing the inherent power of the federal 24 courts to impose sanctions). A fine of $500 is ordered to be paid by Andrew Kim. The 25 sanction is to be paid by counsel personally and shall not be charged to his clients. The 26 sanction is to be paid to the Court’s Library Fund. 27 Moreover, due to Mr. Kim’s repeated failure to effectively prosecute Plaintiffs’ case, 28 the Court shall hold a second Status conference on January 5, 2024, to discuss terminating 1 ||sanctions. See Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) 2 || (“District courts have inherent power to control their dockets. In the exercise of that power 3 ||they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default or dismissal.”). 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. Monetary sanctions in the amount of $500 are imposed against Andrew Kim, 6 Esq. for failing to comply with the Court’s orders and the district’s rules. Mr. 7 Kim shall make this payment, payable to the Court’s Library Fund, on or 8 before January 2, 2024. Mr. Kim shall file a notice with this Court within 9 three days of making this payment, informing the Court that he has done so. 10 2. Mr. Kim must appear before this Court on January 5, 2024, at 11:00 a.m., 11 in Courtroom 12B to discuss whether Mr. Kim’s actions or lack thereof merit 12 terminating sanctions in this case. Counsel is admonished that if he fails to 13 appear for the hearing on January 5, 2024, the Court will issue 14 terminating sanctions and dismiss the case. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 || DATED: December 19, 2023 ( itl A (Liphan 6 ig United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _~ 2.