Renfro v. J.G. Boswell Co.

• Decision Date: 27 December 2017
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:17-cv-01069-LJO-SAB
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
• Parties: CHRISTOPHER RENFRO, Plaintiff, v. J.G. BOSWELL CO. INC., et al., Defendants.

CHRISTOPHER RENFRO, Plaintiff, v. J.G. BOSWELL CO. INC., et al., Defendants.

Case No. 1:17-cv-01069-LJO-SAB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

December 27, 2017

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DENYING DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM AND AS A SANCTION FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS

(ECF Nos. 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 28, 20)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS

Plaintiff Christopher Renfro ("Plaintiff"), appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the complaint in this action on August 9, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) Currently before the Court is specially appearing Defendants motion for Rule 11 sanctions and a show cause order regarding Plaintiff's failure to comply with Court orders issued in this action.

A hearing on Defendants' motion and the order to show cause was held on December 20, 2017. Plaintiff appeared pro se. Counsel Sean O'Rourke and William Bruce were present, and Thomas Fitch appeared telephonically for Defendants. Having considered the moving, opposition and reply papers, the declarations and exhibits attached thereto, arguments presented at the December 20, 2017 hearing, as well as the Court's file, the Court issues the following findings and recommendations.

I.BACKGROUND

Plaintiff was employed as a seasonal tomato driver for Defendant Young's Commercial Transfer, Inc. ("Defendant Young's") for one month in January 2014. (First Am. Compl. ("FAC") 14, 25,¹ ECF No. 13.) From March 8, 2014 through June 30, 2014, Plaintiff worked as a long haul truck driver for Defendant Swift Transportation ("Defendant Swift"). (FAC 14.) Plaintiff worked for Defendant Young's from July 22, 2014, through October 13, 2014. (Decl. of Christopher Refro in Opp. for Mot. For Sanctions Pursuant to FRCP Rule 11 by Specifically Appearing Defs. And Request for Monetary Sanctions ¶ 1, ECF No. 15 at 15-17.)

On August 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed an action, Christopher E. Renfro, et al. v. J.G. Boswell Company, No. 16C-0241, in Kings County Superior Court.² The case can be accessed from the Kings County Superior Court's website, using the "Smart Search" option. See https://cakingsodyprod.tylerhost.net/CAKINGSPROD. In that action, Plaintiff brought claims against Defendants J.G. Boswell Co.; Lakeland Aviation; H & G Farms, Inc.; Young's; and Erik J. Hansen alleging negligence, personal injury claims, strict liability res ipsa loquitur, negligence per se, gross negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. (Compl., ECF No. 10 at 18-26.)

On March 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Eastern District of California. Renfro, et al. v. J.G. Boswell Co. Inc., No. 1:17-cv-00418-LJO-EPG (E.D. Cal. March 22, 2017). The complaint was brought against twenty-seven defendants: J.G. Boswell Co Inc.; J.G. Boswell Tomato Co. Kern; J.G. Boswell Tomato Co.-Kings; Erick J. Hansen; H & G Farms; Lakeland Aviation; Young's Commercial Transfer, Inc.; Randy Daniels; Tony Cisneros; Zach Johnson;Gary Johnson; Larry Sailors; Gabby Manzo; Jesse Nunez; Juan Doe; Cruz Doe; Ben Barczak; National Interstate Insurance Co; Dr. Thomas Leonard; MES Solutions; Tim Niswander; Rusty Lantsberger; Kings County Agriculture Department; Daniel Agulair; Stockwell, Harris, Wolverton; and Carlos Duran. Id. Defendants filed a motion to remand and the action was remanded to the state Court on July 7, 2017. Renfro, et al. v. J.G. Boswell Co. Inc., No. 1:17-cv-00418-LJO-EPG (E.D. Cal. July 7, 2017).

On August 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant action against Defendants J.G. Boswell Co Inc.; J.G. Boswell Tomato Co. Kern; J.G. Boswell Tomato Co.-Kings; Erick J. Hansen; H & G Farms; Lakeland Aviation; Young's Commercial Transfer, Inc.; Randy Daniels; Tony Cisneros; Zach Johnson; Gary Johnson; Larry Sailors; Gabby Manzo; Jesse Nunez; Juan Doe; Cruz Doe; Ben Barczak; National Interstate Insurance Co; Dr. Thomas Leonard; MES Solutions; Tim Niswander; Rusty Lantsberger.; Kings County Agriculture Department; Daniel Agulair; Stockwell, Harris, Wolverton; and Carlos Duran alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act; EPA application of Pesticides; and Americans with Disabilities Act. (ECF No. 1.) On September 14, 2017, Plaintiff's complaint was screened and dismissed with leave to amend for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file his amended complaint which was granted on October 19, 2017. (ECF Nos. 7, 8.)

On October 20, 2017, Defendants Lakeland Aviation, Inc.; Erick J. Hansen; H & G Farms; J.G. Boswell Co.; J.G. Boswell Tomato Co Kings; and J.G. Boswell Tomato Co. Kern specially appeared to file a notice that they had served Plaintiff with a Rule 11 motion. (ECF No. 9.) On November 16, 2017, Defendants specially appeared to file a motion for sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 10.) The motion was referred to the undersigned on November 17, 2017. (ECF No. 11.)

On November 29, 2017, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against 27 defendants: J.G. Boswell Co Inc.; J.G. Boswell Tomato Co. Kern; J.G. Boswell Tomato Co.-Kings; Erick J. Hansen; H & G Farms; Lakeland Aviation; Young's Commercial Transfer, Inc.; Randy Daniels; Tony Cisneros; Zach Johnson; Terry Johnson; Larry Sailors; Alex Manzo; Jesse Nunez; JuanDoe; Cruz Doe; Gabby Manzo; Ben Barczak; National Interstate Insurance Co; Dr. Thomas Leonard; MES Solutions; Tim Niswander; Rusty Lantsberger; Kings County Agriculture Department; Daniel Agulair; and Stockwell, Harris, Wolverton, Humphrey alleging causes of action for RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq.; conspiracy against rights, 18 U.S.C. § 241; and deprivation of rights under color of law, 18 U.S.C. § 242. (ECF No. 13.)

The first amended complaint was found not to comply with the orders granting Plaintiff leave to amend and on November 30, 2017, an order was filed requiring Plaintiff to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to comply with court orders. (ECF No. 14.)

On December 4, 2017, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants' motion for sanctions pursuant to Rule 11. (ECF No. 15.) On December 7, 2017, Defendants filed a reply to the opposition. (ECF No. 16.) In response to the Court's order requiring Defendants to supplement the motion for sanctions, Defendants filed a supplement on December 18, 2017. (ECF No. 18.) On December 21, 2017, Defendant filed a proof of service for the motion for Rule 11 sanctions. (ECF No. 20.)

II.MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS

A. Legal Standard

Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, by presenting a pleading, written motion, or other paper to the Court, the "attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:"

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 11(b).

Rule 11 provides for the imposition of sanctions when the Court finds that the Rule has been violated. "If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation." Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 11(c)(1). A sanction imposed under Rule 11 "must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. The sanction may include nonmonetary directives; an order to pay a penalty into court; or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney's fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation." Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(4).

"Rule 11 is designed to deter attorneys and unrepresented parties from violating their certification that any pleading, motion or other paper presented to the court is supported by an objectively reasonable legal and factual basis; no showing of bad faith or subjective intent is required." Truesdell v. S. California Permanente Med. Grp., 209 F.R.D. 169, 173-74 (C.D. Cal. 2002). Rule 11 is governed by an objective standard of reasonableness. Conn v. Borjorquez, 967 F.2d 1418, 1421 (9th Cir. 1992). The question is therefore, at the time that the paper was presented to the court, did it lack evidentiary support or contain frivolous legal arguments. Truesdell, 209 F.R.D. at 175. "If, judged by an objective standard, a reasonable basis for the position exists in both law and in fact at the time the position is adopted, then sanctions should not be imposed." Conn, 967 F.2d at 1421 (quoting Golden Eagle Dist. Corp. v. Burroughs Corp., 801 F.2d 1531, 1538 (9th Cir.1986)). "Under the plain language of the rule, when one party files a motion for sanctions, the court must determine whether any provisions of subdivision (b) have been violated." Warren v. Guelker, 29 F.3d 1386, 1389 (9th Cir. 1994).

B. Defendants' Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions Should be Denied

Defendants move for sanctions under Rule 11 arguing that Plaintiff has been informed by the state court that his personal injury...