The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISCHARGING THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT SANCTION ATTORNEY SENGTHIENE BOSAVANH (California Bar No. 249801) (Doc. 19) (Doc. 24) (Doc. 20) (Doc. 23) (Doc. 24) (Doc. 25) (Doc. 24) (Doc. 24)
On January 14, 2013, in each of the eight above-captioned cases,*fn1 this Court issued an order to show cause why the Court should not sanction attorney Sengthiene Bosavanhn, returnable January 29, 2013. On January 28, 2013, Ms. Bosavanh filed a written response and a revised written response answering each matter noted in the order to show cause. Although her response acknowledged her ultimate supervisory responsibility for the cases that she had filed, Ms. Bosavanh provided explanations for each of the deficiencies noted in the order to show cause. Ms. Bosavanh added that Milam Law was no longer accepting clients seeking to appeal denials of Social Security disability benefits in federal courts.
The order to show cause was heard on January 29, 2013, at 11:00 a.m., before Honorable Sandra M. Snyder, U.S. Magistrate Judge. Ms. Bosavanh, accompanied by attorney Charles McGill,*fn2 appeared personally on her own behalf; Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick Snyder appeared on behalf of the Commissioner.
Judge Snyder admonished Ms. Bosavanh, noting that orders to show cause are not issued easily or blithely, but represent the Court's last resort when other remedies have been pursued and exhausted. The incidents of misrepresentation and incompetence enumerated in the order to show cause adversely affected all magistrate and district judges in the Eastern District of California and their staffs and greatly burdened the District's limited judicial resources. Ms. Bosavanh apologized to the Court, indicating that "We [Milam Law] are not doing this any more."
In response to Ms. Bosavanh's written claim that she relied on the U.S. Attorney to identify errors in venue, Assistant U.S. Attorney Snyder clarified the U.S. Attorney's process in addressing Social Security disability appeals, pointing out that his office has no knowledge of a claimant's address on the complaint filing date but only the last known address provided in the administrative proceedings. Snyder emphasized that the U.S. Attorney's office cannot backstop the failure of a claimant's attorney to properly determine venue and that, under the regulations, the responsibility to properly allege a claimant's current address rests with the claimant and his or her attorney.
Judge Snyder added that, despite the 2010 incident in which the Clerk of Court identified a mis-venued case and returned it to Ms. Bosavanh, the Clerk has neither the responsibility nor the necessary information to double-check a plaintiff's filing for proper venue when the civil cover sheet misidentifies the plaintiff's county of residence.
1. Sengthiene Bosavanh completed her law studies at San Joaquin College of Law in 2006. www.sjcl.edu (January 22, 2013).
2. Ms. Bosavanh was admitted to the State Bar of California on June 4, 2007, and is presently listed as active and in good standing. She has no public record of discipline.
3. She is affiliated with Milam Law, which limits its practice to Social Security disability claims.
4. Although the web site for Milam Law indicates that both Ms. Bosavanh and firm "owner and operator" Jeffrey Milam are resident in the firm's Fresno office, the State Bar lists Ms. Bosavanh's address as being the firm's Grass Valley office. According to the State Bar, her e-mail address is listed at Central California Legal Services, where she worked while attending San Joaquin College of Law. The Milam Law website discloses no information regarding bar admission or membership for either Mr. Milam or Ms. Bosavanh.
5. Ms. Bosavanh filed her first Social Security disability appeals in this Division on November 20, 2007. Salas, 1:07-cv-01693-AWI-SMS; See, 1:07-cv-01776-LJO-DLB.
6. Between December 11, 2007, and January 31, 2008, Milam Law substituted Ms. Bosavanh as the attorney of record in 45 pending social security disability cases.
7. After becoming an associate at Milam Law, Ms. Bosavanh relied on the expertise of its office manager, an individual she identifies only as "Debbie," "who had vast experience as a legal secretary for Social Security law firms, and with federal court work, had the clerical role of filing complaints and performing other clerical functions in assisting with the federal court appeal cases." Haltom, Doc. 21 at 4. "Since Debbie was highly experienced when [Ms. Bosavanh] arrived at the firm, she and the firm relied on her and had no reason to expect that she was doing anything improper or was failing to do things that she should have been doing." Id.
8. Until October 2008, an unnamed employee of Milam Law was responsible for filing all pleadings in social security disability cases. The "unnamed employee" had fifteen years of experience in filing federal court documents for Milam Law and other Social Security attorneys. Following the "unnamed employee's" abrupt departure in October 2008, Ms. Bosavanh discovered "countless errors," including misrepresentation of the status of pending claims, failure to file claims, and other "myriad errors." See Haworth, 1:08-cv-01276-AWI-DLB, Doc. 10.
9. On January 8, 2009, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause, why Haworth, filed August 27, 2008, should not be dismissed as a result of the plaintiff's failure to serve the summons and complaint on the Commissioner. Doc. 9. Blaming the situation of the misdeeds of the "unnamed employee" in a response dated January 30, 2009, Ms. Bosavanh claimed that she did not know of the Haworth case nor of the order to show cause until they were mentioned to her at an unspecified training session.
10. Only after "the unnamed employee" left Milam Law did Ms. Bosavanh seek continuing legal education in federal court procedures and Social Security disability appeals. Haltom, Doc. 21 at 4.
11. As of the date of this order, Ms. Bosavanh has appeared as attorney of record in 234 Social Security disability appeals before the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California. Of these cases, Ms. Bosavanh was listed as the attorney of record at the time of filing of 184 cases.
12. In mid-December, 2012, court staff identified at least eight pending cases in which Ms. Bosavanh identified the plaintiff's county of residence as Fresno even though the administrative record indicated that the plaintiff resided in another county. These are the eight cases set forth in the caption of this order. Two of these cases were properly venued in the Northern District of California. The remaining six cases were properly venued in the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California.*fn3
13. On December 19, 2012, the Court ordered the plaintiffs in four cases (Lingenfelter (1:12-cv-47-LJO-SKO), Dearmon (1:12-cv-345-AWI-SKO), Hodgens (1:12-cv-471-LJOSKO), and Bustos (1:12-cv-725-AWI-SKO)) (1) to file a declaration on or before January 4, 2013, under penalty of perjury, stating his or her residence on the filing date of the complaint and on the date of the declaration, and (2) if the plaintiff's residence was not within the jurisdiction of the Fresno Division, to show cause why the case should not be transferred to the appropriate district court.
14. On December 21, 2012, the Court ordered plaintiffs in four additional cases to show cause, in writing, why their cases should not be transferred for improper venue: Haltom (1:11-cv-1439-LJO-SMS), Hudleton (1:11-cv-1646-LJO-SMS), Ford (1:12-cv-153-LJOSMS), and Rangel (1:12-cv-411-AWI-SMS). In each case, the Court directed the plaintiff to file a declaration setting forth his or her current address and address on the complaint filing date.
15. On January 3 and 4, 2013, Ms. Bosavanh filed, on behalf of her client in each of the eight above-captioned cases, a response attributing the misstatement on the civil cover sheet to clerical error and requesting that the Court avoid further delay and exercise its discretion to issue a decision on the merits.
16. In light of Ms. Bosavanh's concession that she had filed the eight above-captioned cases in the wrong venue, court staff conducted an exhaustive review of all cases for which Ms. Bosavanh had at any time served as attorney of record.
17. Initially, the complaints that Ms. Bosavanh filed in this Division used the same vague vicinage language that Milam Law had used in all its complaints since at least 2004: "[Plaintiff's name] is a competent adult residing within the jurisdictional boundaries of this court."
18. Ms. Bosavanh co-drafted a new complaint form with Oregon attorney Tim Wilborn to provide a format that did not require insertion of the plaintiff's name or address.
19. Of the 138 cases filed by Ms. Bosavanh for which the Court was able to determine the plaintiff's residence at the time of filing, the county of residence was misreported on the civil cover sheet 91 times (approximately 66 percent). Eighteen of these cases would properly have been venued elsewhere than the Fresno Division had Ms. Bosavanh properly reported the plaintiff's residence.
20. Ms. Bosavanh changed her method of completing the civil cover sheet in late 2009. Only three cases filed in this division since January 2010 report that the plaintiff resided in a county other than Fresno. Beginning in August 2010, Ms. Bosavanh filed no civil cover sheet reporting that a plaintiff lived in any county other than Fresno.
21. Of the 122 cases filed by Ms. Bosavanh since January 2010 for which the plaintiff's residence can be determined, 85 complaints (approximately 70 per cent) allege the plaintiff's residence incorrectly, including thirteen cases (approximately 11 per cent) that would properly have been filed in the Sacramento Division of this District and three cases (approximately 2.5 per cent) that properly would have been filed in the Northern District of California.
22. In her written response to the order to show cause, Ms. Bosavanh claimed to have been completely unaware of any venue issues with her cases until the Court began to examine them. Haltom, Doc. 21 at 6.
23. In her written response to the order to show cause, Ms. Bosavanh acknowledged that she was ultimately responsible for filing cases in the wrong venue but attributed the errors to training that emphasized that "venue is a fairly mechanical process" in social security disability appeals. Ms. Bosavanh protests that she instructed her staff to ask her any questions they might have regarding documents to be filed with the Court but "[t]here was never a question asked about venue." Haltom, Doc. 21 at 6.
24. When staff members asked Ms. Bosavanh questions regarding the filing of complaints, including the determination of venue, she referred them to various available sources, including the federal court website, rules ...