Lyon v. Bergstrom Law, Ltd., No. 1:2016cv00401 - Document 31 (E.D. Cal. 2017)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 30 Plaintiff's unopposed motion to strike defendant's answer be granted and default entered. Matter referred to Judge Drozd; Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days of service of this recommendation. The hearing currently set for 1/18/2017, is VACATED; signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 1/17/2017. (Thorp, J)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 Case No. 1:16-cv-00401-DAD-SKO NICOLE LYON, 10 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S ANSWER PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(iii) BE GRANTED AND DEFAULT ENTERED Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 15 v. BERGSTROM LAW, LTD., (Doc. 30) Defendant. _____________________________________/ OBJECTIONS DUE: 14 DAYS 16 17 18 19 I. INTRODUCTION On December 28, 2016, Plaintiff Nicole Lyon filed a Motion to Strike Defendant’s Answer 20 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(iii) based on Defendant Bergstrom Law, Ltd.’s failure to 21 obey the Court’s Order entered November 2, 2016 (Doc. 27), to provide discovery and to pay 22 attorney’s fees. (Doc. 30.) Defendant has not filed an opposition to the Motion. 23 Plaintiff’s motion is therefore deemed unopposed. After having reviewed the papers and 24 supporting material, the matter is deemed suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to 25 Local Rule 230(g), and the Court hereby VACATES the hearing set for January 18, 2017. For the 26 reasons set forth below, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s unopposed motion be 27 GRANTED, that Defendant’s Answer be STRICKEN, and that the Clerk be DIRECTED to 28 ENTER DEFAULT against Defendant. 1 2 II. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND On March 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging damages against Defendant, a law 3 firm, for violations of (1) the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ et 4 seq., and (2) the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“Rosenthal Act”), Cal. Civ. Code 5 §§ 1788-1788.32. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that sometime before February 2016, she fell behind 6 in payments allegedly owed on a debt. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 24.) In or about February 2016, Defendant 7 contacted Plaintiff by telephone “in an attempt to collect Plaintiff’s alleged debt and left Plaintiff a 8 voicemail.” (Id. at ¶26.) Defendant, however, did not disclose in this voicemail message that the 9 communication was from a debt collector. (Id. at ¶ 27.) Plaintiff alleges that this conduct violated 10 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(11)’s required disclosure that the communication is from a debt collector. (Id.) 11 Because this portion of the FDCPA is incorporated by reference in the Rosenthal Act, Plaintiff 12 alleges that the conduct violated the Rosenthal Act as well. (Id. at ¶ 28.) 13 On October 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed a “Motion Regarding Discovery” based on Defendant 14 Bergstrom Law, Ltd.’s complete failure to provide responses to Plaintiff’s outstanding discovery 15 requests consisting of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. (Doc. 25.) 16 Defendant did not file an opposition to the Motion. On November 2, 2016, the Court granted 17 Plaintiff’s motion and ordered Defendant to serve written responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories 18 and Requests for Production of Documents by November 9, 2016, and to pay Plaintiff’s attorney 19 reasonable attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,475.00 by December 2, 2016. (See Doc. No. 27.) 20 On November 3, 2016, Plaintiff’s counsel, Crosby S. Connolly, mailed, faxed and emailed 21 Defendant and Jeremy Bergstrom, a partner in Defendant, notice of the Court’s November 2, 2016 22 Order. (See Doc. 30, Ex. 2, Declaration of Crosby S. Connolly (“Connolly Decl.”), ¶ 9 and Ex. 23 A.) On November 9 and 14, 2016, Mr. Connolly left voicemails with Yvonne McGovern, an 24 attorney with Defendant, requesting an update as to the status of Defendant’s discovery responses. 25 (See id. ¶¶ 10, 11.) 26 On November 14, 2016, Mr. Connolly spoke with a secretary in Defendant’s office who 27 informed him that Mr. Bergstrom would be returning Mr. Connolly’s phone call “shortly.” (See 28 id. ¶ 12.) The call went unreturned. (See id. ¶ 13.) That next day, Mr. Connolly once again 2 1 contacted Defendant and left a voicemail in its general mailbox inquiring as to the status of 2 Defendant’s discovery responses. (See id. ¶ 14.) 3 On November 16, 2016, Mr. Connolly and Robert L. Hyde, a partner at Hyde & Swigart, 4 called Mr. Bergstrom to discuss Defendant’s failure to comply with the Court’s November 2, 2016 5 Order. During this phone call, Mr. Bergstrom stated, among other things, that he was a “little 6 behind” with his work load, and “had not read the Court Order.” (See id. ¶ 15.) On November 21, 7 2016, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Defendant’s Failure to Comply with the November 2, 2016 Court 8 Order,” indicating that Defendant had not complied with the Court’s Order. (Doc. 28.) 9 On December 8, 2016, Mr. Connolly informed Ms. McGovern that Plaintiff intended to 10 file a motion to strike Defendant’s answer for refusing to comply with the Court’s November 2, 11 2016 Order. (See id. ¶ 16.) Plaintiff filed another “Notice of Defendant’s Failure to Comply with 12 the November 2, 2016 Court Order” on December 12, 2016, again advising the Court of 13 Defendant’s failure to comply. (Doc. 29.) On December 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed the present 14 motion to strike pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(iii) (Doc. 30), to which Defendant did not 15 file an opposition (see Docket). To date, Defendant has not complied with the Court’s Order of 16 November 2, 2016. 17 III. DISCUSSION 18 A. 19 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, the Court may impose sanctions against a party Legal Standard 20 that fails to obey a court order to provide discovery, including “striking pleadings in whole or in 21 part . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(iii). Before striking a pleading, and declaring default as a 22 result, a court must consider: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) 23 the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the other party; (4) the public 24 policy favoring the disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 25 sanctions.” Dreith v. Nu Image, Inc., 648 F.3d 779, 788 (9th Cir. 2011). “Where a court order is 26 violated, the first and second factors will favor sanctions and the fourth will cut against them.” 27 Computer Task Group, Inc. v. Brotby, 364 F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir. 2004). 28 // 3 1 In addition, “[w]here the sanction results in default, the sanctioned party’s violations must 2 be due to the ‘willfulness, bad faith, or fault’ of the party.” Jorgensen v. Cassiday, 320 F.3d 906, 3 912 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Hyde & Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d 1162, 1167 (9th Cir. 1994)). See 4 also Fjelstad v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 762 F.2d 1334, 1341 (9th Cir. 1985). “Disobedient 5 conduct not shown to be outside the control of the litigant is sufficient to demonstrate willfulness, 6 bad faith, or fault.” Hyde & Drath, 24 F.3d at 1167. “A single willful violation may suffice 7 depending on the circumstances.” United States v. Approximately $30,000.00 in U.S. Currency, 8 No. 1:13-CV-1542 GSA, 2015 WL 5097707, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2015). See also 9 Probuilders Specialty Ins. Co. v. Valley Corp., No. C10-05533 EJD HRL, 2012 WL 6045753, at 10 *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2012) (“Although case-dispositive sanctions are usually reserved for 11 repeated violations of court orders, even a single willful violation may suffice, depending on the 12 circumstances.”). 13 B. 14 As in most cases, the first two factors “facially favor” Plaintiff. See United States v. Analysis 15 $61,000.00 in U.S. Currency, No. 2:11-CV-09384-ODW, 2013 WL 1867536, at *2 (C.D. Cal. 16 May 3, 2013). Defendant’s inaction has also caused Plaintiff prejudice: Plaintiff has not been able 17 to obtain responses to Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents from Defendant, 18 which in turn has “obstruct[ed] Plaintiff’s ability to adequately and reasonable [sic] pursue her 19 case.” (Doc. 30 at 3:25-26.) While public policy generally favors a decision on the merits, less 20 drastic measures here are unlikely to be effective. The Court imposed lesser sanctions in its 21 November 2, 2016 Order, requiring Defendant to provide written responses to Plaintiff’s 22 Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents and awarding reasonable attorney’s 23 fees in the amount of $1,475.00—to no avail. (See Doc. 27.) Defendant’s failure to comply with 24 its discovery obligations and the Court’s November 2, 2016 Order—not to mention its failure to 25 oppose this very motion—demonstrates that a lesser sanction would likely be met with continued 26 disinterest. 27 Finally, Defendant’s failure to cooperate in discovery could not possibly have been caused 28 by circumstances beyond its control. By entering an appearance and contesting this action, 4 1 including filing an unsuccessful motion to dismiss (Docs. 5, 18), Defendant was aware that it 2 would be required to provide discovery to Plaintiff. See, e.g., $61,000.00 in U.S. Currency, 2013 3 WL 1867536, at *2. It is clear that Defendant’s subsequent failure to answer discovery in 4 violation of the Court’s November 2, 2016 Order constitutes willfulness, bad faith, or fault on its 5 part. Indeed, two weeks after its entry, Defendant had not yet even read the Court’s November 2, 6 2016 Order, despite Plaintiff’s counsel’s repeated inquiries as to Defendant’s compliance with the 7 Order. 8 IV. 9 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 10 1. 11 Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion to Strike Defendant’s Answer Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(iii) (Doc. 30) be GRANTED; 12 2. Defendant’s Answer (Doc. 19) be STRICKEN; and 13 3. The Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to ENTER DEFAULT against Defendant. 14 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this 15 action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within fourteen 16 (14) days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these 17 findings and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document 18 should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The 19 district judge will review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified 21 time may waive the right to appeal the district judge’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 22 839 (9th Cir. 2014). 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: 26 January 17, 2017 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 5 .
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
