Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Edwin Durand, et al v. Candice Stephenson

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


October 1, 2012

EDWIN DURAND, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
CANDICE STEPHENSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Carolyn K. Delaney United States Magistrate Judge

AMENDED ORDER

The order entered on September 28, 2012 is amended as follows: By order filed September 29, 2010, the court determined that sanctions should be imposed on plaintiffs under Rule 11. Dkt. no. 42. That order did not make a determination of the amount of the sanctions, pending further briefing by the parties. Plaintiffs moved to reconsider the order finding Rule 11 sanctions to be appropriate. By order filed November 10, 2010, the district judge denied the motion to reconsider. Dkt. no. 49. The amount of sanctions remains to be determined. Plaintiffs have now filed declarations setting forth their financial circumstances. Upon review of the financial declaration of plaintiffs, the declaration of defense counsel regarding the amount of attorneys fees incurred in connection with plaintiffs' Rule 11 violations and review of the entire record in this matter, THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

1. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(4), the court finds a sanction requiring plaintiffs to pay $5,000 will be sufficient, and not more severe than reasonably necessary, to deter repetition of the conduct found objectionable by the court in the September 29, 2010 order. Plaintiffs shall accordingly pay to the Clerk of Court $5,000. Payment of said sum may be paid in monthly installments of $500 for ten months, with the first installment to be made no later than October 31, 2012.

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the court's financial department.

3. Plaintiffs are cautioned that failure to comply with this order may result in contempt proceedings.

20121001

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.