Brooke v. Rihh LP ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 THERESA BROOKE, Case No. 19-cv-06852-SI 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 v. SANCTIONS 10 RIHH LP, Dkt. No. 22 11 Defendant. 12 13 On February 19, 2020, plaintiff filed a notice with the Court (the “First Notice”), to which 14 defendant objected. Dkt. No. 12 (Notice); Dkt. No. 13 (Objections). The Court entered an order on 15 February 28, 2020 striking the First Notice as improper because it did not fall into any category of 16 filings listed in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Northern District Civil Local Rules. Dkt. 17 No. 14 at 1 (Order). 18 On March 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed another notice (the “Second Notice”) and, again, 19 defendant objected. Dkt. No. 18 (Notice); Dkt. No. 19 (Objection). On March 26, 2020, the Court 20 entered an order again striking plaintiff’s Second Notice as improper. Dkt. No. 20 (Order). 21 On March 29, 2020, defendant filed the instant motion for sanctions in the amount of $2,025 22 pursuant to Local Rule 1-41, 28 U.S.C. § 19272, and the Court’s inherent powers. Dkt. No. 22-1 at 23 1 Under the Northern District of California Local Rule 1-4, “[f]ailure by counsel or a party 24 to comply with any duly promulgated local rule or any Federal Rule may be a ground for imposition of any authorized sanction.” N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 1-4. “District courts have broad discretion in 25 interpreting and applying their local rules.” Bertoli v. Wachovia Corp., No. C11-3432, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110600, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2011) (citing Miranda v. Southern Pacific Transp. 26 Co., 710 F.2d 516, 521 (9th Cir. 1983)). 27 2 The Court has discretion to order sanctions pursuant to § 1927 and under its inherent 1 3 (Motion for Sanctions). Defendant argues plaintiff should be sanctioned for violating local court 2 and federal rules by intentionally filing the frivolous Second Notice in bad faith, increasing 3 defendant’s costs. Dkt. No. 22-1 at 4-5 (Motion for Sanctions). 4 Prior to filing the instant motion, defendant requested sanctions in its objection to the Second 5 || Notice. Dkt. No. 19 at 2, 5. The Court’s order on the Second Notice explicitly ordered plaintiff to 6 adhere to local and federal rules or risk future sanctions. Dkt. No. 20 at 1 (Order). Under these 7 circumstances, the current motion for sanctions is DENIED. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: April 13, 2020 Stn Ml ee 11 SUSAN ILLSTON 12 United States District Judge © 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28