Brooke v. Rihh LP
- Susan Illston
- 3:19-cv-06852
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Brooke v. Rihh LP, Judge Illston denied Rihh LP’s motion seeking sanctions against Brooke for filing improper notices.
Theresa Brooke was not sanctioned through this motion; Rihh LP’s request for $2,025 in sanctions was denied.
What happened
In Brooke v. Rihh LP, Theresa Brooke filed two notices that the court struck as improper because they did not fit the filings allowed by federal or local rules.
Rihh LP asked for $2,025 in sanctions, arguing that Brooke knowingly filed the second notice in bad faith and increased its costs. Rihh LP had also requested sanctions earlier in its objection to that notice.
Judge Susan Illston denied the motion for sanctions. The court noted that the earlier order had already warned Brooke to follow the rules or face possible future sanctions.
The detailed version
- Brooke v. Rihh LP · No. 3:19-cv-06852
- Susan Illston
- Apr. 13, 2020
Background
On February 19, 2020, Theresa Brooke filed a notice that Rihh LP opposed. The court struck that notice on February 28, 2020, because it did not fall within a category of filing allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Northern District of California’s Civil Local Rules.
Brooke filed another notice on March 22, 2020. Rihh LP again objected, and the court struck the second notice on March 26, 2020, as improper. In that order, the court directed Brooke to follow the federal and local rules or risk future sanctions.
Motion and Arguments
On March 29, 2020, Rihh LP moved for $2,025 in sanctions under Northern District of California Local Rule 1-4, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and the court’s inherent powers. Rihh LP argued that Brooke intentionally filed the second notice in bad faith, violated federal and local rules, and increased Rihh LP’s costs. Rihh LP had previously requested sanctions in its objection to the second notice.
Ruling
The court denied the motion for sanctions. It relied on the fact that Rihh LP had already requested sanctions in its earlier objection and that the court’s order striking the second notice had expressly warned Brooke to follow the rules or risk future sanctions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.