Lin v. Teng Fei Restaurant Group Inc.

Background

Guangqing Lin and Yun Qiang Wu brought this case against Teng Fei Restaurant Group Inc., doing business as Tenzan 89 Japanese Cuisine, and Fei Teng. The opinion concerns sanctions against plaintiffs’ lawyers, not the underlying claims.

On November 7, 2019, the court issued a trial scheduling order requiring the parties to submit several pretrial materials by December 20, 2019. These materials included a single set of jointly proposed jury instructions, a jointly proposed verdict sheet, and a courtesy binder containing properly marked copies of each party’s exhibits. A final pretrial conference was set for January 27, 2020, and trial was scheduled to begin on February 4, 2020.

Neither side submitted the required materials by December 20, and neither requested an extension before the deadline. After a court law clerk contacted plaintiffs’ counsel, counsel requested an extension to December 26. The court accepted certain filings made on December 26, but the parties still had not submitted joint jury instructions, a joint verdict sheet, or usable exhibit binders.

The court then ordered the lawyers to explain why they should not be sanctioned. Defendants’ lawyer, Yuan Zheng, responded that her firm had accidentally failed to calendar the deadline and had not realized it had passed until plaintiffs’ counsel raised the issue. Plaintiffs’ counsel attributed the delay to defendants’ lawyer’s alleged lack of responsiveness but did not explain what efforts they had made to contact her or why they had not requested another extension.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f)(1) allows a court to issue appropriate orders, including sanctions, when a party or lawyer fails to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order. The court stated that sanctions under this rule do not require a finding of bad faith. It applied the standard requiring clear and convincing evidence that counsel disregarded a clear and definite scheduling or pretrial order.

The court also explained that a sanction should be sufficient, but no greater than necessary, to secure future compliance. Although the rule generally addresses payment of reasonable expenses caused by noncompliance, the court found that awarding defendants attorneys’ fees would be unjust under the circumstances.

Court’s reasoning

The court found that Troy Law failed to submit the required joint jury instructions, joint verdict sheet, and usable exhibits by either the original deadline or the extended deadline. The failure continued despite several inquiries from court staff. The court also faulted John Troy and Aaron Schweitzer for not seeking another extension and for providing an inadequate written response to the order requiring an explanation.

The court noted that a staff employee of Troy Law had attempted to explain the situation through an ex parte telephone call to chambers, but the court had told the employee that a written filing by counsel was required. Plaintiffs’ counsel then filed a brief response that continued to blame opposing counsel without explaining their own efforts to meet the deadlines.

The court concluded that plaintiffs’ counsel had the responsibility to take the lead in preparing and providing proposed joint pretrial materials early enough for defendants’ counsel to respond. The court found that counsel’s conduct warranted sanctions, even though defendants’ counsel also had some responsibility for the missed deadline. The court determined that defendants’ counsel’s calendaring mistake did not justify or substantially excuse plaintiffs’ counsel’s conduct.

Disposition

The court ordered John Troy and Aaron Schweitzer to each pay a $1,000 civil sanction to the Clerk of Court. They were required to file proof of payment on the docket within 14 days of the order. The court did not award attorneys’ fees to defendants. It also cautioned Troy Law that further sanctions could be imposed if the required joint pretrial materials were not fully submitted by January 21, 2020.