Brill v. Postle ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 VERONICA BRILL; KASEY LYN MILLS; No. 2:19-cv-02027 WBS AC MARC GOONE; NAVROOP SHERGILL; 13 JASON SCOTT; AZAAN NAGRA; ELI JAMES; PHUONG PHAN; JEFFREY 14 SLUZINSKI; HARLAN KARNOFSKY; ORDER RE: MOTION FOR NATHAN PELKEY; MATTHEW ALLEN SANCTIONS 15 HOLTZCLAW; JON TUROVITZ; ROBERT YOUNG; BLAKE ALEXANDER KRAFT; 16 JAMAN YONN BURTON; MICHAEL ROJAS; HAWNLAY SWEN; THOMAS 17 MORRIS III; PAUL LOPEZ; ROLANDO CAO; BENJAMIN JACKSON; HUNG SAM; 18 COREY CASPERS; ADAM DUONG; DUSTIN MCCARTHY; CHOU VINCE 19 XIONG; BRIAN OLSON; CAMERON SMITH; JORDAN DIAMOND; ARONN 20 SOLIS; ALISHA DANIELS-DUCKWORTH; CHRISTIAN SOTO VASQUEZ; ANDREW 21 HERNANDEZ; DARRELL STEED; ARISH S. NAT; KYLE KITAGAWA; BRIAN 22 MICHAEL RAASCH; ZEEV MALKIN; DAVID CRITTENTON; PATRICK 23 LAFFEY; PARAS SINGH; FIRAS BOURI; IDRIS M. YONISI; JOSHUA 24 WHITESELL; DAVID DUARTE; HARUN UNAI BEGIC; BRAD KRAFT; TAYLOR 25 CARROLL; ELIAS ABOUFARES; TYLER DENSEN; ANDREW LOK; JAKE 26 ROSENSTIEL; ANTHONY AJLOUNY; HECTOR MARTIN; DALE MENGHE; 27 SCOTT SCHLEIN; AUGUSTE SHASTRY; NICHOLAS COLVIN; JASON MARKWITH; 28 BRIAN WATSON; SHANE GONZALES; 1 KATHERINE STAHL; MIKE NELSON; BRANDON STEADMAN; BRYANT MILLER; 2 HONG MOON; MATTHEW GOUGE; NICHOLAUS WOODERSON; CARLOS 3 WELCH; ARIEL REID; DAN MAYER; ANTHONY GIGLINI; RYAN JACONETTI; 4 ARIEL CRIS MANIPULA; TRENTON SIDENER; JAMES JOHN O’CONNOR; 5 PATRICK VANG; MARCUS DAVIS; ADAM COHEN; DERICK COLE; AARON 6 MCCORMACK; BRENNEN ALEXANDER COOK; MICHAEL PHONESAVANH 7 RASPHONE; BENJAMIN TENG; SCOTT SORENSON; ANTHONY HUGENBERG; and 8 BILLY JOE MESSIMER, 9 Plaintiffs, 10 v. 11 MICHAEL L. POSTLE; KING’S CASINO, LLC D/B/A STONES 12 GAMBLING HALL; JUSTIN F. KURAITIS; JOHN DOES 1-10; and 13 JANE DOES 1-10, 14 Defendants. 15 16 ----oo0oo---- 17 Plaintiffs have filed a motion for sanctions under 18 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (“Rule 11”) and Local Rule 182 19 against defendant Michael Postle upon the ground that he 20 allegedly used an attorney ghostwriter to author his motion to 21 dismiss in the above captioned action. 22 Michael Postle is not an attorney. He is representing 23 himself, in propria persona, as he has a right to do, in this 24 action. Plaintiffs base their suggestion that his motion to 25 dismiss was ghostwritten by an attorney upon the facts that the 26 motion cited to controlling law using correct Bluebook citations 27 and bears a striking resemblance to another a motion brought on 28 Postle’s behalf in another case, authored by his attorney in that 1 action. See United States v. Hughes, Case No. 2:20-cv-00321-JAM- 2 KJN (E.D. Cal. 2020) at Docket No. 6. 3 Regardless of whether Postle had his motion 4 ghostwritten by that attorney or cut and pasted from the brief 5 his attorney filed in that prior case, the court sees no reason 6 to impose sanctions here. 7 Rule 11 “requires all attorneys to verify through their 8 signatures that there are sufficient grounds for the arguments in 9 their pleadings.” Walker v. Pac. Mar. Assoc., No. C07-3100 BZ, 10 2008 WL 1734757, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Arp. 14, 2008) (citations 11 omitted). Nothing in its language prohibits ghostwriting or even 12 plagiarizing pleadings. Similarly, Local Rule 182(a)(1) provides 13 “no attorney may participate in any action unless the attorney 14 has appeared as an attorney of record,” but also does not 15 specifically proscribe ghostwriting or assign a consequence for 16 engaging in it. See L.R. 182(a)(1). 17 Federal courts in California and elsewhere have frowned 18 upon the practice of ghostwriting. See Shalaby v. Jacobowitz, 19 No. C 03-0227-CRB, 2003 WL 1907664, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 20 2003) (quoting Laremont-Lopez v. Se. Tidewater Opportunity 21 Project, 968 F. Supp. 1075, 1080 (E.D. Vir. 1997)). However, 22 counsel has been unable to identify anything in the State Bar of 23 California’s Rules of Professional Conduct which proscribes such 24 practice. For that reason, courts have been hesitant to award 25 sanctions where ghostwriting of pleadings has been found. See, 26 e.g., Ricotta v. State of Cal., 4 F. Supp. 2d 961, 987 (S.D. Cal. 27 1998) aff’d sub nom. Ricotta v. State of Cal., 173 F.3d 861 (9th 28 Cir. 1999). WAS TUN RON UU OO Ie AY ST Tt 1 For the foregoing reasons, the court declines to 2 exercise its discretion to impose sanctions here. 3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for 4 sanctions be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. 5 | Dated: June 3, 2020 / td . ak. 2 6 WILLIAM B. SHUBB 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28