From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Master v. Pressman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 26, 2016
CASE NO. CV 11-4574-JLS (SPx) (C.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2016)

Opinion

CASE NO. CV 11-4574-JLS (SPx)

01-26-2016

CAMOFI MASTER LDC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Jerrold Pressman, et al., Defendants. and U.S. Aerospace, Inc., Nominal Defendant.


ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DIRECTING THAT DEFAULT BE ENTERED AGAINST CERTAIN DEFENDANTS

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the records on file and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge on Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions. (Doc. 348.) Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which certain Defendants have objected. Specifically, Defendants Charles Arnold, Daisy Rodriguez, KC-X American Aerospace, LLC, and TUSA Acquisition Corp. argue that as innocent clients kept "in the dark" from their attorney's misconduct, they should not be subject to terminating sanctions. (See Doc. 365.) For the following reasons, these objections do nothing to invalidate the Magistrate Judge's determination that such sanctions are warranted here.

First, the Ninth Circuit has made clear "[t]here is certainly no merit to the contention that dismissal of [a party's] claim because of his counsel's unexcused conduct imposes an unjust penalty on the client." See Toth v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 862 F.2d 1381, 1387 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 633 (1962)). The Defendants here "voluntarily chose [their] attorney as [their] representative in th[is] action, and [they] cannot now avoid the consequences of the acts or omissions of this freely selected agent." Id. (quoting Link, 370 U.S. at 633-34). Second, upon reviewing the records on file, it appears that these Defendants were aware of their attorney's misconduct before Plaintiffs filed their motion for sanctions. The Court therefore finds no reason to challenge the Magistrate Judge's determination. Nor do the objections of the other affected Defendants, which speak to the five-factor framework of terminating sanctions, (Doc. 367), alter the Court's conclusion. Accordingly, the Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 324) is granted; and (2) default be entered pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A) against defendants Michael Goldberg, Kenneth Koock, Charles Arnold, John C. Kirkland, ADI, Richard Berkshire, TUSA, Daisy Rodriguez, KC-X, and the Estate of Richard Fixaris. DATED: January 26, 2016

/s/_________

HONORABLE JOSEPHINE L. STATON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Master v. Pressman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 26, 2016
CASE NO. CV 11-4574-JLS (SPx) (C.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2016)
Case details for

Master v. Pressman

Case Details

Full title:CAMOFI MASTER LDC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Jerrold Pressman, et al.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jan 26, 2016

Citations

CASE NO. CV 11-4574-JLS (SPx) (C.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2016)