Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Southern District of California
November 30, 2010, Decided; November 30, 2010, Filed
Case No. 10cv1017-LAB (BLM); Case No. 09cv2691-W (BLM)
ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS AGAINST FRANKLIN J. LOVE
This order imposes sanctions against Franklin J. Love, attorney for Defendant California Business Bureau, Inc. (Defendant or CBB), for his conduct in the above-referenced cases.
On July 12, 2010, the Court convened a Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) in Santangelo v. California Business Bureau, Inc., 09cv2691-W (BLM). Mr. Love, counsel for Defendant, brought Tonya Richardson to the MSC as the CBB representative with full settlement authority, as required by court order. 1 Ms. Richardson advised the Court that she was the Vice President of Defendant's San Diego office and represented that she had full settlement authority. However, during the MSC, the Court discovered that Ms. Richardson had limited settlement authority and was unable to consider settlement above a specified amount. Ms. Richardson and Mr. Love told [*2] the Court that they had to contact Mike Sigal, the President of the company, to request settlement authority above the specified amount. The Court indicated that arrangement did not comply with the Court's order requiring the representative who was present in court to have "full settlement authority." Later in the conference, Ms. Richardson advised the Court that she had telephoned Mr. Sigal and secured additional settlement authority but, again, only to a specific dollar amount. The Court again advised Mr. Love that limited authority, that is authority to a specific amount, did not comply with the Court's order and explained that Mr. Sigal was the person with "full settlement authority" as defined in the Court's order. Because Mr. Love would be representing California Business Bureau in an Early Neutral Evaluation hearing a few days later (Hofer v. California Business Bureau, Inc., 10cv1017-LAB (BLM)), the Court ordered Mr. Love to bring Mr. Sigal to the ENE as the representative for California Business Bureau.
Mr. Love did not bring Mr. Sigal to the Hofer ENE as directed by the Court. Instead, Mr. Love brought another employee, Sue Perry. Mr. Love told the Court that Ms. Perry had full settlement authority [*4] and that, therefore, he did not believe he was required to bring Mr. Sigal to the Hofer ENE. Although the Court had not issued an Order To Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed (OSC) after the Santangelo MSC, the Court did so after the Hofer ENE based upon the second violation of this Court's orders. Santangelo ECF No. No. 11; Hofer ECF No. 7.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126092 *
MICHAEL SANTANGELO, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA BUSINESS BUREAU, INC., Defendant. MICHAEL C. HOFER and TREVA M. HOFER, Plaintiffs, v. CALIFORNIA BUSINESS BUREAU, INC., a corporation, Defendant.
Subsequent History: Motion denied by Santangelo v. Cal. Bus. Bureau, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155009 (S.D. Cal., Dec. 7, 2010)
declaration, full settlement, sanctions, settlement authority, settlement, verbal, court order, cases, settle