Estate of Ronnie Kong v. City of San Diego

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ESTATE OF RONNIE KONG, by and Case No. 22-cv-1858-BAS-DDL through successor in interest, Touch Kong; TOUCH KONG, an individual, ORDER: 13 (1) IMPOSING MONETARY Plaintiffs, SANCTIONS, v. (2) SETTING STATUS 15 HEARING RE: CITY OF SAN DIEGO; SAN DIEGO TERMINATING SANCTIONS POLICE DEPARTMENT; ANDREW CAMPBELL; CHRISTOPHER LUTH; and TONY MARASCHIELLO, Defendants.

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 Counsel failed to arrange for the Complaint to be served in a timely manner, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause as to why the case should not be dismissed for a failure to prosecute and a failure to timely serve pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 5.) The Court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause no later than March 20, 2023, as to why the case should not be dismissed. Counsel ignored this Court’s 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 gave Plaintiffs leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) no later than September 10, 2023. (ECF No. 10.) At the request of Plaintiffs’ Counsel, the Court extended the deadline for Plaintiffs’ Counsel to file a FAC to October 24, 2023. (ECF No. 12.) Counsel ignored this deadline. Instead, two weeks after the deadline, Counsel filed a FAC. (ECF No. 14.)

7 The FAC failed to comply with the Court’s Local Rules, requiring that an amended complaint be “accompanied by a version of that pleading that shows—through redlining, underlining, strikeouts or other similarly effective typographic methods—how that pleading differs from the previously dismissed pleading.” Civ. L.R. 15.1(c). Hence, the Court ordered Plaintiffs’ Counsel to re-file the FAC, accompanied by an appropriate redlined pleading by November 27, 2023. (ECF No. 16.) Again, Counsel ignored the Court’s order. Therefore, the Court set a Status hearing for today, December 18, 2023, at 3:00 p.m., ordering Counsel for Plaintiffs to appear and “show cause as to why a monetary 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, 2023, the Court called this matter. Although not required to appear, Counsel for Defendants was present and ready to represent his clients. In contrast, Counsel for Plaintiffs, who was required to appear, was nowhere to be found.

20 Consequently, the Court hereby imposes monetary sanctions on counsel of record for Plaintiffs, based on his failure to comply with this Court’s orders and the rules of this district. The Court orders these sanctions pursuant to its inherent authority. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 42–43 (1991) (recognizing the inherent power of the federal courts to impose sanctions). 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. The 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, the Court shall hold a second Status conference on January 5, 2024, to discuss terminating ||sanctions. See Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) || (“District courts have inherent power to control their dockets. In the exercise of that power ||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.

17 || DATED: December 19, 2023 ( itl A (Liphan 6 ig United States District Judge _~ 2.