Jones v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:15-cv-02726
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Jones v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Judge Hixson ordered SCMTD and attorney Robert G. Howie to explain why sanctions should not follow a mistrial.
Amanda Jones, Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District and its counsel Robert G. Howie, the court, and the prospective jurors were affected. The order required the defendant and Howie to respond to the potential sanctions; it did not yet impose them.
What happened
In Jones v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, a retrial was stopped after attorney Robert G. Howie told prospective jurors that Amanda Jones had multiple sclerosis and used a wheelchair for reasons unrelated to the lawsuit. The court said the statement was highly prejudicial because the remaining negligence claim centered on the cause of Jones’s injuries.
The court had declared a mistrial, requiring another trial and causing wasted court expenses. Jones moved for sanctions covering attorney fees and costs. The court said Howie’s conduct appeared reckless and ordered the defendant and Howie to explain why they should not be required to pay sanctions, including the court’s jury-related expenses and Jones’s documented expenses.
Judge Thomas S. Hixson set January 4, 2024, as the deadline for the response. The order did not decide whether sanctions would ultimately be imposed.
The detailed version
- Jones v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation · No. 3:15-cv-02726
- Thomas Hixson
- Dec. 18, 2023
Background
The case was scheduled for a two-week retrial beginning November 29, 2023, after a March 2023 trial ended without a jury verdict. Before the retrial, the parties told the court that they did not plan to call witnesses who had not testified previously.
During jury selection, Robert G. Howie, counsel for Defendant Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District, told the prospective jurors that Amanda Jones had multiple sclerosis and was confined to a wheelchair for reasons unrelated to the lawsuit. The court said the only remaining claim for trial was negligence and that causation—whether the defendant’s conduct caused Jones’s injuries—was a central issue.
Mistrial and potential sanctions
The court granted Jones’s motion for a mistrial. It found Howie’s statement massively prejudicial because it directly concerned causation and because the court had no basis to think evidence about multiple sclerosis would be admissible. The court also noted that Howie had not identified a witness who would testify about the diagnosis or its connection to Jones’s alleged injuries, and acknowledged that the doctor he referenced would not be called.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, a court may require an attorney or other authorized person to pay costs, expenses, and attorney fees caused by unreasonably and vexatiously multiplying court proceedings. The court stated that recklessness is enough to support sanctions under that statute.
The court identified $3,294.35 in wasted jury-related expenses, including juror attendance, mileage, bridge tolls, parking, and coffee service. It also stated that the court processed questionnaires for 50 prospective jurors and assigned an additional jury clerk, and that another trial would require further jury selection and duplicated preparation. Jones had moved for sanctions covering attorney fees and costs incurred because of the mistrial, supported by declarations.
Order
The court ordered the defendant and Howie to show cause—meaning to explain—why sanctions should not be imposed for the alleged misconduct. The possible sanctions included the court expenses and the expenses incurred by Jones and her counsel. Their response was due January 4, 2024.
This order did not impose sanctions; it required a response before the court decided whether to do so.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.