Lopez v. Ford Motor Company et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States
 District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
RICARDO LOPEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 24-cv-02155-BLF
ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS
[Re: ECF No. 26]
On February 19, 2026, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause re: Sanctions (“OSC”).
ECF No. 26. In that order, Rabiya Tirmizi, counsel for Plaintiff, was ordered to show cause why
monetary sanctions should not be imposed in the amount of $500 for misrepresenting facts to the
Court in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) and for failing to appear as counsel of
record for Plaintiff at a February 19, 2026, hearing on Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment. Id. Ms. Tirmizi filed a response, and the Court held a hearing on March 19, 2026.
ECF Nos. 27, 30. For the following reasons, the Court imposes sanctions in the amount of $500
for violating Rule 11(b).
I. BACKGROUND
On January 27, 2026, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment. ECF No. 20 (“Opp.”). Plaintiff argued that Defendant’s motion should be
denied “due to Defendant’s obstructive and dilatory discovery conduct.” Id. at 4. Specifically,
Plaintiff alleged that “defendant is withholding discovery from plaintiff” and that “[t]hrough its
ongoing obstructive conduct,” Defendant had not produced “[t]he requested—and outstanding—
testimony and documents.” Id. Ms. Tirmizi signed Plaintiff’s opposition. Id. at 10. She also
concurrently filed a sworn declaration attesting that “Defendant . . . continues to obstruct the
Case 5:24-cv-02155-BLF Document 31 Filed 03/19/26 Page 1 of 4

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
discovery process, failing to timely either produce a [person most knowledgeable] for the bulk of
relevant deposition testimony or non-privileged documents responsive to Plaintiff’s records
requests.” Tirmizi Decl. ¶ 23, ECF 20-12.
On February 3, 2026, Defendant filed its reply. ECF No. 23. Defendant’s counsel, by
sworn declaration, informed the Court that “[a]t the time of filing his Opposition, Plaintiff had not
conducted any discovery in this case.” Vilchez Decl. ¶ 2, ECF 23-1. Instead, Plaintiff first served
discovery requests and noticed the deposition of Defendant’s person most knowledgeable on
January 28, 2026, the day after filing his opposition. Id. ¶¶ 3–6 & Exs. A–D.
On February 19, 2026, the Court held a hearing on Defendant’s Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment. Ms. Tirmizi did not appear. See ECF No. 25. The Court docket reflects that
Plaintiff received notice of the hearing date on January 13, 2026. See ECF No. 18.
The Court subsequently issued the OSC. ECF No. 26. In response, Ms. Tirmizi explained
that her involvement in the case began on January 27, 2026, when she opposed the Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment and that “[u]pon opposing Defendant’s Motion, [she] realized
discovery was outstanding” so she “requested discovery be propounded the following day on
January 28, 2026.” Tirmizi Decl. Re: OSC ¶ 4 (“OSC Response”). Ms. Tirmizi also stated that
she “included an argument under FRCP Rule 56(d) due to a Person Most Knowledgeable . . .
deposition not yet taking place,” which she described as “a standard procedural argument.” Id. ¶¶
5–6. Ms. Tirmizi also explained that she did not appear at the summary judgment hearing because
the “docketing team inadvertently vacated the hearing.” Id. ¶¶ 8–9.
The Court held a hearing on the OSC on March 19, 2026. ECF No. 30. At the hearing,
Ms. Tirmizi confirmed the explanations provided in the OSC Response and added that the Rule
56(d) argument—accusing opposing counsel of dilatory conduct—was based on a template.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that by filing a pleading or other
paper, “an attorney . . . certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief,
formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances . . . the factual contentions have
evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a
Case 5:24-cv-02155-BLF Document 31 Filed 03/19/26 Page 2 of 4

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b); see Lake v.
Gates, 130 F.4th 1064, 1067 (9th Cir. 2025). In analyzing whether conduct is sanctionable under
Rule 11, courts employ an objective standard of reasonableness and do not consider the attorney’s
subjective good faith. Bus. Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Commc’ns Enters., Inc., 892 F.2d 802, 811
(9th Cir. 1989), aff’d 498 U.S. 533 (1991). If a court determines that Rule 11 has been violated, it
“may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is
responsible for the violation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1). “Absent exceptional circumstances, a law
firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or
employee.” Id.
III. DISCUSSION
Ms. Tirmizi violated Rule 11(b) when she filed Plaintiff’s summary judgment opposition.
There was no basis in fact to suggest that discovery was “requested . . . and outstanding” or that
Defendant had engaged in “obstructive and dilatory discovery conduct” given that Plaintiff had yet
to request any discovery, as Ms. Tirmizi later acknowledged. Opp. at 4; see also Tirmizi Decl. ¶
23; OSC Response ¶ 4. Accusing opposing counsel of dilatory conduct is not a “standard
procedural argument.” OSC Response ¶ 6. Instead, it was uncivil name calling and a material
misrepresentation of procedural facts in an effort to defeat summary judgment. That is
unacceptable. The fact that these statements were mistakenly included because they were taken
from a template only serves to show the degree of carelessness involved, which is inconsistent
with an objective standard of reasonableness for an officer of the court. And the fact that counsel
made no effort to correct the error when, by the following day, she realized that discovery had not
been requested was itself unreasonable. See OSC Response ¶ 4.
Because Ms. Tirmizi’s conduct in filing the summary judgment opposition violated Rule
11(b), the Court will impose monetary sanctions. The Court will not, however, impose sanctions
for failing to appear at the February 19, 2026, hearing because Ms. Tirmizi has adequately
explained why the scheduling error occurred. Moving forward, Ms. Tirmizi is advised to be
mindful of her obligations to her clients and as a member of the State Bar of California.
Case 5:24-cv-02155-BLF Document 31 Filed 03/19/26 Page 3 of 4

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
IV. ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Ms. Tirmizi is sanctioned in
the amount of $500 payable to the Court on or before April 2, 2026. Ms. Tirmizi and Strategic
Legal Practices, APC, are jointly responsible for this sanction.
Dated: March 19, 2026
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
Case 5:24-cv-02155-BLF Document 31 Filed 03/19/26 Page 4 of 4