BGC, Inc. v. Bryant
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:22-cv-04801
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In BGC v. Bryant, Judge Corley denied BGC’s sanctions motion without prejudice because it failed to follow filing rules and sought sanctions after compliance.
BGC, Inc.’s request for contempt and other sanctions was denied without prejudice; Kimberly Bryant was not sanctioned by this order.
What happened
BGC, Inc. v. Bryant concerns BGC’s request for contempt sanctions against Kimberly Bryant after an order required the transfer of certain domain names to a jointly controlled account.
BGC said Bryant had not complied with the April 4 order. Before a hearing on BGC’s motion, however, BGC learned that the domain names had been transferred and conceded that point. The court also found that the motion did not follow the district’s requirements for sanctions motions.
Judge Jacquelyn Corley denied BGC’s motion for sanctions without prejudice to renewing it in compliance with the local rules. The court also noted that BGC had not shown why sanctions were proper after the requested conduct had occurred or explained how the requirements for sanctions under federal law had been met.
The detailed version
- BGC, Inc. v. Bryant · No. 3:22-cv-04801
- Jacquelyn Corley
- May 5, 2023
Background
BGC filed an emergency motion seeking to enforce a previously entered temporary restraining order. On April 4, 2023, the court granted that motion, ordered BGC to establish a new jointly controlled account with Register.com, and ordered Kimberly Bryant to transfer the relevant BGC domain names to that account.
Three days later, BGC filed another emergency motion seeking a temporary restraining order and contempt sanctions, arguing that Bryant had not complied with the April 4 order. At the hearing, BGC reported that it had learned shortly before the hearing that the domain names had been transferred to the joint account. BGC therefore conceded that the transfer had occurred.
Court’s analysis
Civil Local Rule 7-8 requires sanctions motions to be separately filed and noticed for a hearing under Civil Local Rule 7-2, to comply with the form requirements of Rule 7-2, and to comply with any applicable federal rule. The court held that BGC’s April 7 request for contempt sanctions did not comply with Local Rule 7-8.
The court also stated that BGC cited no authority showing that contempt sanctions were proper when the conduct BGC sought to compel had already occurred. The court found that there was no remaining conduct to compel because BGC had conceded that the domain names had been transferred.
BGC alternatively argued that Bryant’s conduct supported an award of the costs and fees associated with the motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The court explained that Section 1927 applies when an attorney unreasonably and vexatiously multiplies proceedings. It also stated that sanctions under Section 1927 and the court’s inherent authority require a finding of bad faith. The court found that BGC’s motion did not discuss how those requirements had been satisfied.
Disposition
Judge Corley denied BGC’s motion for sanctions without prejudice to renewal in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7-8. The order disposed of Docket No. 64.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.