United States, ex rel. v. T L Peterson, Inc.
- Kandis Westmore
- 4:17-cv-02277
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In United States, ex rel. v. T L Peterson, Inc., Judge Westmore denied Matthew Zugsberger’s sanctions motion because he did not show bad faith or improper purpose.
Matthew Zugsberger and the defendants, including Galindo Construction Company, Inc. and Ron Galindo, were affected by the ruling on the sanctions motion.
What happened
United States, ex rel. v. T L Peterson, Inc. concerned Matthew Zugsberger’s request for sanctions against defendants for allegedly failing to pay court-ordered maintenance and cure after he was injured while working as a commercial diver.
The court noted that Zugsberger filed the motion before past payments were due. By a later hearing, the parties agreed that the required payments were being made, apart from difficulty with certain medical appointments caused by paperwork problems.
Judge Kandis A. Westmore denied the sanctions motion, finding that Zugsberger had not shown the defendants acted in bad faith or for an improper purpose.
The detailed version
- United States, ex rel. v. T L Peterson, Inc. · No. 4:17-cv-02277
- Kandis Westmore
- Sept. 23, 2019
Background
Matthew Zugsberger moved for sanctions, or alternatively for an order requiring the defendants to explain why they should not be sanctioned, based on alleged failure to comply with the court’s September 28, 2018 order. That earlier order granted Zugsberger partial summary judgment and awarded him maintenance and cure during the case. The order required the defendants to pay past maintenance of $33,476.86 within 60 days, pay maintenance at $53.33 per day going forward, and pay and authorize reasonable medical treatment expenses incurred on an ongoing basis.
Zugsberger alleged that he was injured while employed as a commercial diver by Galindo Construction Company, Inc. and Ron Galindo. He filed the sanctions motion on November 14, 2018. The court held hearings on the sanctions motion and on a later order requiring the defendants to explain their compliance.
Court’s Analysis
A court may use its inherent authority to impose sanctions when a party willfully disobeys a court order or acts in bad faith, vexatiously, or for oppressive reasons. The court emphasized that this authority must be used cautiously and that the party seeking sanctions must show the required bad faith or improper purpose.
At the December 20, 2018 hearing, the parties stated that the defendants had complied with the requirement to pay the ongoing maintenance rate of $53.33 per day. The court explained that the past-due maintenance and cure payments were not due until November 27, 2018—60 days after the September 28 order—and that Zugsberger filed his motion on November 14, before those payments were due.
At the January 31, 2019 hearing, the parties agreed that payments required by the September 28 order were being made. The parties reported some difficulty paying for certain appointments because Zugsberger had completed paperwork incorrectly, but they were working on prepaying for an upcoming appointment. The defendants also reported financial hardship and stated that they had later received a large payment and were using the company’s line of credit for remaining funds.
Ruling
Judge Kandis A. Westmore found that Zugsberger had not met his burden of showing that the defendants acted in bad faith or with an improper purpose. The court therefore declined to use its inherent authority to impose sanctions.
Disposition
The court DENIED Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.