Flores v. City of Bakersfield

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RUBEN RIVAS FLORES, Case No. 1:24-cv-00229-KES-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF AND COUNSEL TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING 13 v. AS TO WHY DAILY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT CONTINUE AND WHY FULL CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et al., SANCTION AMOUNT SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED AND REPORTED TO STATE BAR 15 Defendants. (Doc. 26) JULY 18, 2025, DEADLINE 18 Background 19 On June 12, 2025, the parties filed a stipulated request for an order granting Plaintiff Ruben Rivas Flores (“Plaintiff”) leave to file a first amended complaint, attaching thereto the proposed first amended complaint. (Doc. 23). On June 13, 2025, the Court granted the parties’ request and directed Plaintiff to file the proposed first amended complaint as a stand-alone docket entry within seven days of issuance of the Court’s order. (Doc. 24).

24 When Plaintiff failed to timely file the amended complaint, a request for extension, or make any filings explaining the delinquency, on June 23, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause within two days why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to comply with a court order.

27 (Doc. 25). The Court permitted Plaintiff to satisfy the show cause order in the alternative by filing a first amended complaint by the same deadline. Plaintiff was admonished that “[a]ny failure by Plaintiff to timely comply with this order will result in the imposition of sanctions.” Id. Plaintiff filed neither a first amended complaint nor any other document seeking an extension or other relief.

3 Accordingly, on June 26, 2025, the Court entered an order imposing upon and requiring Plaintiff to pay sanctions of $100 per day until he filed the amended complaint. (Doc. 26).

5 Governing Authority 6 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that the underlying purpose of the rules is to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of an action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. To effectuate this purpose, the rules provide for sanctions against parties that fail to comply with court orders or that unnecessarily multiply the proceedings. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f); Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b).

10 Relevant here, Rule 16(f) authorizes the Court to issue any just order if a party or attorney fails to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order.

12 The Court also possesses inherent authority to impose sanctions to manage its own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 14 U.S. 32, 43 (1991). The Court’s inherent power is that which is necessary to the exercise of all others, including to protect the due and orderly administration of justice and maintain the authority and dignity of the Court. Roadway Exp., Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 764 (1980). In order to compel a party to comply with the Court’s orders, the Court may issue daily sanctions until compliance is obtained. See Shell Offshore Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 815 F.3d 613, 629-30 (9th Cir. 2015) (recognizing a district court’s authority to impose daily sanctions to coerce compliance with court order); Lasar v. Ford Motor Co., 399 F.3d 1101, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (discussing court’s authority to impose civil sanctions “intended to be remedial by coercing the defendant to do what he had refused to do.”).

23 Similarly, the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California provide that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. Further, “[i]n the event any attorney subject to these Rules engages in conduct that may warrant discipline or other sanctions, any Judge or Magistrate Judge may initiate proceedings for contempt under 18 U.S.C. § 401 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 42, or may, after reasonable notice and opportunity to show cause to the contrary, take any other appropriate disciplinary action against the attorney.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 184(a). “In addition to or in lieu of the foregoing, the Judge or Magistrate Judge may refer the matter to the disciplinary body of any Court before which the attorney has been admitted to practice.” Id. 5 Discussion 6 Here, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint as a stand-alone entry on the docket. See (Doc. 24). When Plaintiff failed to comply by the deadline imposed, the Court ordered compliance at risk of sanction. See (Doc. 25). Still, and despite the subsequent imposition of daily sanctions prompted by Plaintiff’s noncompliance, Plaintiff still has failed to comply with the Court’s orders. Aside from evidencing Plaintiff’s lack of regard for complying with court orders, Plaintiff’s intransigence is preventing the Court from efficiently managing its docket in this action.

13 As of the date of this order, daily sanctions are set to reach $2,000.00 by the daily deadline of 5:00 p.m. Pursuant to California law, “a court shall notify the State Bar of any of the following: . . . (3) The imposition of any judicial sanctions against an attorney, except sanctions for failure to make discovery or monetary sanctions of less than one thousand dollars ($1,000).” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6086.7(a)(3).

18 It is not clear if Plaintiff or his counsel are even aware of the ongoing daily sanctions, and counsel may have neglected to read the order entirely, or otherwise failed to address it. The Court shall afford Plaintiff and his counsel an opportunity to explain why the total sanction amount already compiled as of this date should not be imposed in total, jointly and severally against Plaintiff and his counsel. The Court may accept a partial reduction of the total amount of sanctions based on a clear and convincing demonstration of good cause addressing the failure to timely pay to the Clerk of the Court the cumulative daily sanctions now owed.

25 To be clear to Plaintiff and his counsel, nothing in this order suspends the ongoing imposition of the daily sanctions that began on June 26, 2025, and the daily sanctions will continue to accrue during the pendency of the response period indicated in this order, until Plaintiff and counsel comply with the Court’s orders noted above and this order.

1 Conclusion and Order 2 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED, that no later than July 18, 2025, Plaintiff | Ruben Rivas Flores and counsel Stephen A. King shall show cause in writing why the cumulative, | previously imposed sanction and daily sanction amount, set to reach $2,000.00 as of the date of this | order (July 16, 2025), shall not be imposed jointly and severally, why such sanction shall not be || reported to the State Bar of California, and why daily sanctions shall not continue to be imposed.

7 | IT IS SOORDERED. | Dated: _ July 16, 2025 | hr 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE