Nevada Fleet LLC v. Fedex Corp.

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 9 — 10 NEVADA FLEET LLC, No. 2:17-cv-01732-DAD-CSK 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS 13 FEDEX CORPORATION, et al., AND COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS 14 Defendants. (Doc. No. 243) — 15 — — 16 — 17 This matter is before the court on plaintiff Nevada Fleet LLC’s motion seeking the 18 imposition of sanctions against defendants Federal Express Corporation and Automotive Rentals, 19 Inc. (Doc. No. 243.) Having reviewed plaintiff’s submission, the court deems the motion 20 suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), and the hearing on this 21 motion previously set for August 4, 2025, is hereby vacated. For the reasons explained below, 22 plaintiff’s motion seeking the imposition of sanctions against defendants and counsel for 23 defendants will be denied. 24 BACKGROUND 25 Plaintiff filed the complaint initiating this action on August 18, 2017. (Doc. No. 1.) On 26 April 17, 2018, plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 27.) On July 30, 2018, 27 defendants Federal Express Corporation and FedEx Corporation filed a motion for judgment on 28 the pleadings. (Doc. No. 36.) On June 11, 2021, the court granted defendants’ motion for 1 judgment on the pleadings with leave to amend being granted plaintiff as to certain claims. (Doc. 2 No. 91.) On July 12, 2021, plaintiff filed its Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 95.) On 3 August 20, 2021, defendants FedEx Corporation and Automotive Rentals Inc. filed motions to 4 dismiss. (Doc. Nos. 111, 112.) The court granted defendant FedEx Corporation’s motion to 5 dismiss and granted in part and denied in part defendant Automotive Rentals Inc.’s motion to 6 dismiss with leave to amend. (Doc. No. 122.) On April 22, 2022, plaintiff filed the operative 7 Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”). (Doc. No. 126.) On May 31, 2022, defendant Automotive 8 Rentals, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss, and on June 2, 2022, defendant Federal Express 9 Corporation also filed a motion to dismiss. (Doc. Nos. 131, 134.) On January 18, 2024, the court 10 granted in part and denied in part both motions to dismiss without leave to amend. (Doc. No. 11 162.) On June 16, 2025, plaintiff and defendants Automotive Rentals, Inc. and Federal Express 12 Corporation filed cross-motions for summary judgment. (Doc. Nos. 218, 219.) 13 On July 25, 2025, plaintiff filed the pending motion for the imposition of sanctions against 14 defendants and counsel for defendants. (Doc. No. 243.) 15 ANALYSIS 16 Under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an attorney presenting a pleading, 17 written motion, or other paper to the court certifies that to the best of their “knowledge, 18 information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:” (1) “it is 19 not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or 20 needlessly increase the cost of litigation”; (2) “the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions 21 are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or 22 reversing existing law or for establishing new law”; and (3) “the factual contentions have 23 evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a 24 reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1)–(3). 25 When the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, it “may impose an appropriate 26 sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the 27 violation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1). “Rule 11 is an extraordinary remedy, one to be exercised 28 with extreme caution.” In re Keegan Mgmt. Co., Sec. Litig., 78 F.3d 431, 437 (9th Cir. 1996) 1 | (quoting Operating Eng’rs Pension Trust v. A-C Co., 859 F.2d 1336 , 1345 (9th Cir. 1988)). 2 | “[T]he central purpose of Rule 11 is to deter baseless filings in district court and . . . streamline 3 | the administration and procedure of the federal courts.” Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 4 | USS. 384, 393 (1990). 5 In its pending motion for the imposition of sanctions, plaintiff argues that defendants 6 | improperly repeated in their pending motion for summary judgment certain unspecified 7 | arguments that, according to plaintiff, were previously raised by the defendants in their motions 8 | to dismiss. (Doc. No. 243 at 13.) The court notes that plaintiff has not provided the court with 9 | the details of any of these apparently duplicative arguments. Regardless, “[a] defendant is not 10 | precluded from raising an argument in a motion for summary judgment that was previously raised 11 in a motion to dismiss.” Ronald C. Fish v. Watkins, No. 03-cv-00067-PHX-SMM, 2006 WL 12 | 8441121, at *3 (D. Ariz. Dec. 14, 2006), aff'd sub nom. Fish v. Watkins, 298 F. App’x 594 (9th 13 Cir. 2008). “The legal standards and procedural requirements governing motions for summary 14 | judgment differ from those governing motions to dismiss.” Jd. “An argument that fails in a 15 | motion to dismiss may nonetheless be a winning argument in a motion for summary judgment 16 | where the court is able to look beyond the pleadings.” Jd.; see also Rengo v. City of Seattle, No. 17 | 12-cv-00298-TSZ, 2014 WL 3579644 , at *2 (W.D. Wash. July 21, 2014) (“Plaintiff argues that 18 || the City is improperly seeking reconsideration of the Court’s prior ruling on earlier motions and is 19 || repeating the same arguments made in earlier motions. ... The Court’s ruling on the City’s 20 | motion to dismiss also does not preclude filing the current motion, as the legal standard for a 21 | motion to dismiss is different from a motion for summary judgment.”). 22 CONCLUSION 23 For the reasons explained above, plaintiff's motion for Rule 11 sanctions (Doc. No. 243) 24 | is DENIED. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. *° | Dated: _ July 31, 2025 Dab A. 2, axel 27 DALE A. DROZD 3g UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE