1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7 SATISH RAMACHANDRAN, Case No. 23-cv-02928-SVK 8 Plaintiff, REDACTED 9 FINAL ORDER ON DEFENDANT 10 CITY OF LOS ALTOS, et al., oONS: ALTOS’ MOTION FOR 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 57 12 On July 9, 2024, the Court granted Defendant City of Los Altos’ motion for Rule 11 : 13 || sanctions against Plaintiff Satish Ramachandran and imposed a $10,000.00 penalty on Plaintiff 5 14 || payable to the Court, for reasons fully explained in that order. Dkt. 104. The Court gave Plaintiff 2 15 || an opportunity to file a statement, declaration, and evidence if he wanted the Court to consider his 16 || inability to pay the $10,000.00 penalty. Id. at 16-17. i 17 Plaintiff thereafter filed a statement, declaration, and evidence in response to the Court’s 18 || July 9 order. Dkt. 105-107. On August 6, 2024, the Court issued an order to show cause (“OSC”) 19 || that addressed Plaintiff's submission. Dkt. 108. The Court found that although Plaintiff had 20 || satisfactorily demonstrated that he had limited income, he had not offered similarly detailed 41 || evidence concerning his assets, particularly his equity in his real estate holdings. Jd. at 2. The 92 || Court noted that in the absence of evidence offered by Plaintiff on this issue, it had consulted 93 || Zillow for information about the present estimated market value of two properties Plaintiffhas _

used as his addresses in this case. /d. at 2-3. The Court’s August 6 OSC required that by August 25 20, 2024, Plaintiff either pay the $10,000.00 penalty to the Court or file a declaration and evidence 2% regarding his inability to pay the $10,000.00 penalty in light of his equity in his real estate holdings. /d. at 3. 28 On August 20, 2024, Plaintiff submitted a statement, declaration, and certain evidence

1 || regarding his real estate holdings. Dkt. 114. The information submitted establishes to the Court’s 2 || satisfaction that Plaintiff does not have an ownership interest in one of the two properties 3 || identified in the August 6 OSC: 820 Laverne Way, Los Altos, CA 94022. See Dkt. 114-1 □□ 6, 4 || 13-15. Plaintiff admits that he has an ownership interest in the second property identified in the 5 || August 6 OSC: 889 Santa Rita Avenue in Los Altos. See id. fj 18-19 and Exs. 8-9. Plaintiff 6 || States that he purchased the property with Sudha lyer for $435,000.00 in 1993. Id. 418. The 7 || Court noted in the OSC that Zillow identified the present estimated market value of that property g || atover $3.3 million. Dkt. 108 at 3. 9 With regard to the property at 889 Santa Rita Avenue, Plaintiff submits evidence of: 10 (1) EE, 2nd (2) a report dated February 17, 2020 submitted by Plaintiff's 1 purported expert’ in other litigation opining that qs

2 (Dt. 114-1 99 47-48 and Exs. 10, 11, 12, 24. B As explained in both the Court’s July 9 sanctions order and August 6 OSC, Plaintiff bears 14 the burden of producing evidence of inability to pay a monetary sanction. See Dkt. 104 at 16; 3 15 Dkt. 108 at 1; see also Gaskell v. Wei,

, 629 (9th Cir. 1993). Even if the Court fully 16 credits Plaintiff's evidence regarding [xe Res. Plaintiff has not carried his burden of '7 Il demonstrating that he is unable to pay a $10,000.00 penalty to the Court, despite several 18 opportunities to make such a showing. Even Plaintiff's “expert” opined more than four years ago th 20 Kt. 114-2 at Ex. 24, PDF p. 87. al De ce kt. 114-3 at Exs. 10-12. 22 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that by September 23, 2024, Plaintiff must pay a 23 $10,000.00 penalty to the Court. Payment may be made at the Clerk’s Office by check, money 24 Hil 25 Hil 26 27 8 oerainttt did not submit a CV or other evidence regarding qualifications of the author of the

1 |} order, or credit card; or online at Pay.gov. Checks and money orders must be made out 2 || to: CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT. 3 SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: August 22, 2024 □ 5 6 Seen varYl SUSAN VAN KEULEN 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 . . 10 . . 11 a 12

3

15 16 17

2 18 19 □ 20 21 22 23 24 □□ 25 26 27 28