Opinion
2:24-cv-04263-MCS-MAA
07-23-2024
Castro v. Costco Wholesale Membership, Inc.
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE MARK C. SCARSI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL
Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order Imposing Sanctions, Requiring Plaintiff's Counsel to Show Cause Re: Further Sanctions, and Resetting Scheduling Conference
The Court ordered lead trial counsel to appear at the scheduling conference on July 22, 2024. (See Order Setting Scheduling Conference § 11(c), ECF No. 10.) Counsel for Plaintiff, Michael Jason Munoz, did not appear.
If a party fails to appear at a scheduling conference, “the court must order the party, its attorney, or both to pay the reasonable expenses-including attorney's fees-incurred.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(f)(2). Accordingly, the Court orders Plaintiff s counsel to pay Defendant the reasonable expenses it incurred because of his nonappearance, including but not limited to attorney's fees incurred to attend the hearing. If the parties agree on the measure of the sanction. Plaintiff s counsel shall pay the agreed sum, and the parties shall file within 14 days a joint statement indicating Plaintiff s counsel completed the payment. If the parties cannot agree on the measure of the sanction. Defendant instead may file within 21 days a motion for an award of expenses. Any such motion may seek an award of fees incurred to file the motion.
The Court orders Plaintiff's counsel to show cause why further sanctions should not be imposed, including but not limited to dismissal, Fed. Rs. Civ. P. 16(f)(1), 37(b)(2)(A)(v), and monetary sanctions payable to the Clerk in the amount of $300, Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44-45 (1991). Plaintiff's counsel shall file a written response within seven days. Failure to file a timely and satisfactory response will result in imposition of further sanctions without further notice.
The Court resets the scheduling conference to August 5, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. The Court questions its jurisdiction over this action. See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 141 (2012) (obliging courts to examine subject-matter jurisdiction issues sua sponte). Counsel should be prepared to discuss at the conference whether the amount in controversy “more likely than not” exceeds the jurisdictional threshold of $75,000. Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 2007); see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); see also Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014) (requiring “[e]vidence establishing the amount . . . when . . . the court questions[] the defendant's allegation” of the amount in controversy); Leon v. Gordon Trucking, Inc., 76 F.Supp.3d 1055, 1069 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (“A plaintiff's damage estimate will not establish the amount in controversy . . . if it appears to be only a bold optimistic prediction.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.