From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sekona v. Francis

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 23, 2022
1:19-cv-00529-ADA-HBK (E.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2022)

Opinion

1:19-cv-00529-ADA-HBK

11-23-2022

ETUATE SEKONA, Plaintiff, v. M. FRANCIS, Defendant.


ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (Doc. No. 53)

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCH/A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's pleading titled “Motion of Termination and Sanction,” construed as a motion for sanctions, filed August 19, 2022. (Doc. No. 53). Plaintiff, who is pro se, requests sanctions against defense counsel for not providing him with a notice of appearance and for allegedly taking part in the July 18, 2022, Settlement Conference in bad faith. (Doc. No. 53 at 1-2). Plaintiff asserts that defense counsel “wasted the time of the court and resource[s].” (Id. at 2). Plaintiff says he offered to settle for a sum certain and Defendant did not make a counteroffer. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff contends Defendant only appeared at the settlement conference to delay the proceedings of the case without any intention to settle. (Id. at 3).

Defendant filed an opposition and a supplemental brief. (Doc. Nos. 55, 58). Defendant states he provided notice of his appearance to Plaintiff as reflected by the docket and argues he had no duty to make a counteroffer to Plaintiff's demand. (Doc. No. 58 at 1). Defendant also disputed the merits of Plaintiff's case. (Id. at 1-4).

Plaintiff cites to no legal authority in support of his motion. Nor has the Court located any authority that requires a party to make a counteroffer to another party's demand during a settlement conference. Further, other than Plaintiff's suspicions, Plaintiff offers no evidence that Defendant participated in the settlement conference in bad faith or wasted the court's time. Notably, there is nothing in the minutes from the July 18, 2022, Settlement Conference to suggest that Defendant did not participate in the settlement conference in good faith. (See Doc. No. 51). Finally, defense counsel did provide Plaintiff with a notice of the change of counsel as evidenced by the docket. (See Doc. Nos. 26, 55).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Plaintiff's motion for sanctions (Doc. No. 53) is DENIED.


Summaries of

Sekona v. Francis

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 23, 2022
1:19-cv-00529-ADA-HBK (E.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2022)
Case details for

Sekona v. Francis

Case Details

Full title:ETUATE SEKONA, Plaintiff, v. M. FRANCIS, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 23, 2022

Citations

1:19-cv-00529-ADA-HBK (E.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2022)