Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
The order was issued in chambers in Estate of Ezekial Plaintiff, et al. v. County of Los Angeles, et al., No. 2:26-cv-03431-AH-KES, in the Central District of California. It concerns the plaintiff's opposition to a defense motion to dismiss, not a decision on the underlying claims or the dismissal motion itself. The court identified a passage in the opposition attributing to Christie v. Iopa, 176 F.3d 1231, 1235 (9th Cir. 1999), the statement that it is difficult to discern from caselaw the quantum of allegations needed to survive dismissal of a pattern-and-practice claim.
According to the order, the opposition also characterized that quotation as binding and argued that the court had to acknowledge difficulty in knowing precisely what level of pattern and practice is required to protect a claim. The court stated that the quotation does not appear in Christie. It further stated that an earlier order had admonished the plaintiff for including the quotation, citing docket number 16, footnote 7, but that the same quotation appeared again in the opposition at docket number 23, page 14. The court therefore focused on the accuracy of the authority presented in the dismissal briefing rather than on the merits of the underlying pattern-and-practice allegations.
The Court’s Holding
The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2) requires an attorney presenting a written motion to certify, after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, that the legal contentions are warranted by existing law. It concluded that the plaintiff's continued citation and use of a quotation absent from the cited authority appeared to violate Rule 11. The order also recited Rule 11(c)'s provision allowing an appropriate sanction after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond when the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated.
The operative ruling was an order to show cause, not an immediate finding that sanctions were warranted or an imposition of the proposed penalty. The plaintiff was ordered to respond in writing by October 28, 2026, explaining why the court should not impose sanctions of $1,500. The court warned that failure to respond would result in monetary sanctions without further notice. The two-page minute order did not resolve the motion to dismiss or decide the merits of any pattern-and-practice allegation, and it left any final sanctions determination for later proceedings after the plaintiff's written response.
Key Takeaways
- The court treated repetition of the disputed quotation after a prior admonition as central to the apparent Rule 11 problem.
- The proposed sanction was $1,500, but the order first gave the plaintiff an opportunity to show cause in writing.
- The response deadline was October 28, 2026, and the court said nonresponse would lead to monetary sanctions without further notice.
- The order addressed litigation conduct in the dismissal briefing and did not decide whether the underlying claims should be dismissed.
- The court distinguished between proposing sanctions and imposing them by requiring notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond before any final determination.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how Rule 11's certification requirement can be applied to the accuracy of legal authority presented in briefing. The court's concern was not simply an unfavorable legal argument, but continued reliance on language it said was absent from the cited decision after the issue had already been flagged in a prior order.
The ruling also preserves the distinction between proposing sanctions and imposing them. By requiring a written response and identifying a specific amount, the court supplied notice of the potential penalty and an opportunity to be heard, while leaving any final sanctions determination for later proceedings. The order thus operates as a preliminary step in the Rule 11 process rather than a final adjudication of misconduct.