Hodgson v. Roper ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Eric Hodgson, No. 2:20-cv-00650-KJM-DB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Randle Roper, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 In a previous order, this court dismissed Eric Hodgson’s second amended complaint 18 | without leave to amend and granted the defendants’ motion for sanctions against Hodgson and his 19 | attorney, Thomas Barth. Prev. Order (Feb. 1, 2022), ECF No. 42. Hodgson and Barth now move 20 | for reconsideration of the sanctions order. See generally Mot., ECF No. 43. The defendants 21 | oppose the motion, see generally Opp’n, ECF No. 45, and Hodgson replied, see generally Reply, 22 | ECF No. 49. The court submitted the matter without oral arguments. Min. Order, ECF No. 47. 23 “As long as a district court has jurisdiction over the case, then it possesses the inherent 24 | procedural power to reconsider, rescind, or modify an interlocutory order for cause seen by it to 25 | be sufficient.” City of L.A., Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 26 | 2001) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Melancon v. Texaco, Inc., 659 F.2d 551, 553 (Sth Cir. 1981)). 27 | “Thus, the court may reconsider previously decided questions in cases in which there has been an 28 | intervening change of controlling authority, new evidence has surfaced, or the previous 1 disposition was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.” Leslie Salt Co. v. United 2 States, 55 F.3d 1388, 1393 (9th Cir. 1995). Under this court’s local rules, any request to 3 reconsider must explain “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which 4 did not exist or were not shown . . . or what other grounds exist for the motion” and “why the 5 facts or circumstances were not shown.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(j)(3)–(4). 6 1. Whether the Forged Court Orders Were Relevant. The court sanctioned Hodgson 7 in part because he had forged two state court orders in an effort to persuade the defendants to hire 8 him, to engage him as an independent contractor, and to make him a member of their startup 9 company. See Prev. Order at 15–19, 23. The forgeries went undiscovered until after Hodgson 10 became a member of the company, after he was removed from the company’s membership, after 11 he filed this lawsuit to challenge that removal, and after he amended his complaint twice in 12 response to motions to dismiss. See id. at 17–18, 23. It was only after the defendants confronted 13 him with the forgery itself Hodgson admitted what he had done, but even then he accused one of 14 the defendants of masterminding the forgery. Id. Hodgson now asks the court to reconsider its 15 decision that this behavior was worthy of monetary sanctions. He argues it is unclear how 16 heavily the defendants actually relied on the forged letters. See Mot. at 6–7. He emphasizes that 17 the court did not find, in its previous order, that his legal position was frivolous or that his only 18 purpose in filing this action was to harass and embarrass the defendants. See id. at 7; see also 19 Prev. Order at 22. He does not cite new evidence or new law. Nor has he shown that the court’s 20 previous order was clearly erroneous or would work a manifest injustice. Monetary sanctions are 21 necessary to remedy Hodgson’s abusive and deceptive behavior and to prevent similar abuses in 22 the future. 23 2. When the Orders Were Forged. Hodgson next argues the court’s previous order 24 relies on the misperception that he forged the two court orders while he was incarcerated. Mot. at 25 7–8, 9–10. The court did not find in its previous order that Hodgson had forged the orders while 26 he was incarcerated. The court rejected his claim that one of the defendants had conceived of the 27 forgery scheme because Hodgson had been referring to exonerating court orders for some time. 28 See Prev. Order at 15–16, 23–24. 1 3. Whether Hodgson’s Declarations Contradict the Complaint. Barth asks the court to 2 reconsider its conclusion that Hodgson’s theory of the forgery contradicted the fundamental 3 theory of his complaint. See Mot. at 9. Hodgson told Barth two things: 4 (a) Defendant Roper wanted so much to prevent his cofounders from rejecting 5 Hodgson that Roper was willing to fabricate evidence to support Hodgson’s false 6 claims about his conviction. 7 (b) From the beginning, none of the defendants—not even Roper—intended for 8 Hodgson to reap the rewards of full membership in the company. 9 See Prev. Order at 23. The court concluded in its previous order that Barth did not reconcile that 10 stark inconsistency before he advanced Hodgson’s theory of defendant Roper’s fraud, as required 11 by Rule 11. See id. Barth has not identified new evidence or authority to rebut this conclusion, 12 and he has not shown it was clear error or would work a manifest injustice. 13 4. Whether Barth Advanced Claims in Bad Faith. Barth asks the court to reconsider its 14 conclusion that he multiplied these proceedings in bad faith by claiming without evidence that 15 defendant Roper had publicized embarrassing allegations about himself in the hope Hodgson 16 would take the blame. See Mot. at 11. He cites no new evidence or law and identifies no error or 17 manifest injustice. He argues he did not intend to multiply the proceedings, but rather only to 18 respond to the defendants’ accusation that Hodgson had circulated the embarrassing allegations. 19 See id. His reassurances of his innocent intentions after the fact do not show error or manifest 20 injustice. 21 5. Whether Barth’s Firm Should be Excluded from Sanctions. Finally, Barth asks the 22 court to reconsider its decision to impose sanctions jointly on his firm. Mot. at 12. “Absent 23 exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed 24 by its partner, associate, or employee.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1). “Since [a sanctions motion] may 25 be filed only if the offending paper is not withdrawn or corrected within 21 days after service of 26 the motion, it is appropriate that the law firm ordinarily be viewed as jointly responsible under 27 established principles of agency.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 Advisory Committee Notes to 1993 28 Amendments. Barth argues the only other partner of his firm “had no involvement in this case.” 1 Mot. at 12. He does not cite authority to suggest this fact qualifies as “exceptional 2 circumstances” under the terms of Rule 11. 3 The motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 43) is denied. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 DATED: June 13, 2022. 6