J.H. v. County of San Mateo

Background

The County defendants sought sanctions against plaintiff’s lawyer, Joseph May, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Rule 11(b)(3) requires a lawyer to have evidentiary support, or a reasonable basis to expect such support, for factual allegations made in a court filing.

The court focused on an allegation in the second amended complaint that the defendants failed to notify J.H.’s prior foster family about his change in placement as required by Department of Human Services regulation 31-440. The complaint also alleged that, if the family had received notice, it would have stopped the placement change.

Court’s findings

The court found that the allegation was factually baseless. Documents from J.H.’s juvenile case file showed that the foster family received notice of the placement change. The file also showed that J.H., his foster mother, Dawson, and a social worker had at least one in-person meeting before the change. Afterward, J.H.’s foster mother emailed people involved in the case saying she was happy J.H. was being placed with family and that he had a good team supporting him.

The court stated that neither the case file nor other evidence provided by Mr. May indicated that the foster family was upset about the planned change or sought to stop it. The court further found that Mr. May could have learned the correct facts through a “reasonable and competent inquiry.” In January 2019, J.H.’s social worker gave case notes containing this information to J.H.’s juvenile-dependency lawyer, Joan Tillman. Tillman became J.H.’s guardian ad litem in this case in May 2020, giving Mr. May access to the documents through her. The court also noted that Mr. May had acknowledged using portions of J.H.’s court file to draft the second amended complaint.

Rulings

The court granted in part and denied in part the motion for sanctions. It ordered Mr. May to pay the County defendants $500 within 21 days. The court said the amount was intended to deter further Rule 11 violations in the case and represented part of the reasonable attorney fees the County defendants incurred litigating the sanctions motion.

The court also granted the motion to seal because the documents came from J.H.’s juvenile case file and contained sensitive personal details. It denied the request for judicial notice. The excerpt states that the court did not consider Exhibits B, C, and D in resolving the motion and describes Exhibits A, E, and F as filings already in the case, but the final sentence is incomplete.