Filed: Mar. 15, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 15, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS Re: Dkt. No. 36 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS , District Judge . On February 5, 2019 the Court granted defendant George Van Buren's motion to dismiss all claims against him for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Dkt. Nos. 30, 33.) Now before the Court is Van Buren's motion for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 on the grounds that plaintiff knew that its assertion that this Court has jurisdiction over Van Buren was meritless and included Van B
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS Re: Dkt. No. 36 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS , District Judge . On February 5, 2019 the Court granted defendant George Van Buren's motion to dismiss all claims against him for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Dkt. Nos. 30, 33.) Now before the Court is Van Buren's motion for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 on the grounds that plaintiff knew that its assertion that this Court has jurisdiction over Van Buren was meritless and included Van Bu..
More
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Re: Dkt. No. 36
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge.
On February 5, 2019 the Court granted defendant George Van Buren's motion to dismiss all claims against him for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Dkt. Nos. 30, 33.) Now before the Court is Van Buren's motion for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 on the grounds that plaintiff knew that its assertion that this Court has jurisdiction over Van Buren was meritless and included Van Buren in its complaint for an improper purpose, namely to "harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation." (Dkt. No. 36 ("Motion") at 7-8 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 11).) Based thereupon, Van Buren seeks reimbursement for his expenses, including attorneys' fees and costs, associated with his motion to dismiss and the instant motion for sanctions. (Id. at 9.)
The Ninth Circuit "reserve[s] sanctions for the rare and exceptional case where the action is clearly frivolous, legally unreasonable or without legal foundation, or brought for an improper purpose." Operating Engineers Pension Trust v. A-C Co., 859 F.2d 1336, 1344 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1-3). Although the Court ultimately determined that Van Buren's contacts with California failed to establish personal jurisdiction over him, the additional allegations provided in plaintiff's opposition to Van Buren's motion to dismiss created some ambiguity as to whether Van Buren had purposefully availed himself of the benefits of this jurisdiction.1 Therefore, the Court finds that plaintiff's conduct in filing the complaint against Van Buren constitutes, at most, zealous advocacy with the goal of maintaining only one action, rather than two, and fails to rise to the level of frivolity or improper purpose required to justify Rule 11 sanctions. See Operating Engineers, 859 F.2d at 1344; see also Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 929 F.2d 1358 (9th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Van Buren's motion for sanctions.
This Order terminates Docket Number 36.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
