(PS) Banga v. Ameriprise Auto & Home Ins. Agency ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KAMLESH BANGA, No. 2:18-cv-01072 MCE AC PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 AMERIPRISE AUTO & HOME INSURANCE AGENCY and IDS 15 PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and the case was accordingly referred to the 20 undersigned by Local Rule 302(c)(21). Pending before the court are plaintiff’s motions for 21 sanctions. ECF Nos. 169, 173, 174.1 Defendants have requested an extension of time to oppose 22 the initial sanctions motion. ECF No. 170. That motion is GRANTED, and all papers have been 23 considered. Plaintiff’s motions for sanctions (ECF Nos. 169, 173, 174) are DENIED for the 24 reasons explained below. 25 I. Relevant Procedural Background 26 This action stems from a dispute over insurance coverage for alleged damage to plaintiff’s 27 1 It appears that ECF No. 174 was intended to replace the earlier filed motions, but out of an 28 abundance of caution, the court reviewed all three motions and rules on each. 1 home caused by a windstorm on January 18, 2016. Revised Third Amended Complaint 2 (“RTAC”), ECF No. 67-3 at 1. Plaintiff sued Ameriprise in state court on January 18, 2018, and 3 Ameriprise removed the action to this court based upon diversity of citizenship (28 U.S.C. § 4 1332). Id. IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company was added as a co-defendant. Id. Plaintiff 5 brings multiple claims against defendant insurers, including breach of contract, bad faith, unfair 6 & unlawful business practices under California’s Unfair Competition Law, intentional 7 misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and intentional/negligent infliction of emotional 8 distress. Id. at 10-21. Discovery in this case concluded in March of 2021. ECF Nos. 91, 117. 9 Both defendants moved for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 124, 125. On November 15, 2021, the 10 undersigned recommended that summary judgment be granted in favor of defendants on all 11 claims, and that this case be closed. ECF No. 162. Plaintiff objected to the findings and 12 recommendations. ECF Nos. 164, 165. The findings and recommendations remain pending 13 before the district judge assigned to this case. 14 In December of 2021 and January of 2022, plaintiff filed the Rule 11 sanctions motions 15 that are under consideration here. ECF No. 174, 163 and 169. Defendants oppose each noticed 16 motion for sanctions. ECF Nos. 176, 177. 17 II. Standard for Sanctions Motion 18 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and Local Rule 110 allow the court to issue sanctions 19 in the event of party or attorney misconduct. District courts retain broad discretion to control 20 their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions, including where 21 appropriate, default or dismissal.” Adams v. California Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 22 (9th Cir. 2007) (brackets in original) (quoting Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 23 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam). 24 III. Analysis 25 Plaintiff’s motions for sanctions allege that defendants made various factual 26 misrepresentations in their motions for summary judgment. See, e.g., ECF No. 174-1 at 6 (“IDS 27 and its counsels violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (‘Rule 11’) by repeatedly 28 misrepresenting to the Court that Plaintiff’s Revised Third Amended Complaint was barred by 1 || one year suit limitations because on April 26, 2016, IDS unequivocally denied Plaintiffs claim 2 || for damage to the roof and as of that date, IDS denied Banga’s claim for damage to her roof and 3 || this case should be closed.”) The undersigned has reviewed plaintiff's motions and defendants’ 4 || oppositions and finds that the motions attempt to re-litigate the summary judgment motions. The 5 || undersigned finds no concrete evidence of fraud upon the court or misrepresentations of fact, and 6 || therefore declines to issue sanctions. The findings and recommendations on the motions for 7 || summary judgment remain pending. 8 IV. Conclusion 9 For the reasons explained above, plaintiff's motions for sanctions (ECF Nos. 169, 173, 10 || and 174) are DENIED. Defendants’ motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 170) is 11 | GRANTED. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 || DATED: February 9, 2022 ~ 14 Chttien— Chane ALLISON CLAIRE Id UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28