Koeppel v. Wilker

Background

Gary and Emma Koeppel, individually and as trustees of the Koeppel Family Trust, sued Steven Wilker and Tonkon Torp LLP. The complaint alleged legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract arising from the defendants’ representation of the plaintiffs in litigation involving the title and deed of trust for the plaintiffs’ home. The defendants removed the case from Monterey County Superior Court to the federal district court and filed an answer.

The court set deadlines for discovery, dispositive and expert-evidence motions, pretrial filings, and a jury trial. The parties did not file motions by the deadline, encountered repeated discovery disputes, and failed to cooperate effectively. The court also described several failures in preparing for trial, including an untimely expert-evidence motion by the plaintiffs, an oversized filing concerning motions to exclude evidence, incomplete joint pretrial materials, and a failure to meaningfully discuss exhibits, jury instructions, and the verdict form.

At a February 18, 2026 pretrial conference, the parties acknowledged that they had not complied with the court’s standing trial order. The court gave them additional time to complete required filings and continued the trial. After reviewing later filings, the court learned that the parties had reached an impasse over jury instructions and the verdict form because of unresolved legal questions, including whether some claims were duplicative and whether certain damages were available. The court ordered briefing on those questions and set a hearing for March 13, 2026.

Order to Show Cause

Judge Noél Wise ordered counsel for both parties to show cause—meaning to explain why sanctions should not be imposed—for failing to comply with multiple court orders. The order identified the case-management and pretrial order, the standing order for civil jury trials, and directions issued at the February 18 pretrial conference.

The court directed counsel to address possible sanctions covering the period from the extended February 27 filing deadline through the start of trial. The possible sanctions listed were daily monetary sanctions, sanctions up to and including issue preclusion—which can prevent a party from presenting a particular issue—and other trial-related sanctions, including further limits on trial time.

The parties were required to file written responses by 5:00 p.m. on March 6, 2026. The court scheduled a hearing on the order to show cause for 9:00 a.m. on March 13, 2026. The court stated that it would consider a settlement before the hearing when assessing any sanction, but required the parties to file their responses even if they resolved the case. The order did not decide the underlying claims and did not impose sanctions at that time.