Henderson v. LVNV Funding LLC

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 10 CASEY HENDERSON, CASE NO. C25-5824JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 12 LVNV FUNDING LLC, 13 Defendant. 14 15 Before the court is pro se Plaintiff Casey Henderson’s motion for sanctions 16 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. (Mot. (Dkt. # 9); Reply (Dkt. # 12).) 17 Defendant LVNV Funding LLC (“LVNV”) opposes the motion. (Resp. (Dkt. # 10).) 18 The court has reviewed the motion, the parties’ submissions, the relevant portions of the 19 record, and the governing law. Being fully advised, the court DENIES Mr. Henderson’s 20 motion for sanctions. 21 Rule 11(c) imposes “stringent notice and filing requirements on parties seeking 22 sanctions.” Holgate v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671, 677 (9th Cir. 2005). In particular, as Mr. 1 Henderson acknowledges (see Mot. at 1), Rule 11(c)(2) contains a “safe harbor” 2 provision, which requires “that any motion for sanctions . . . be served on the offending 3 party at least 21 days before the motion is filed with the court.” Islamic Shura Council of 4 S. Cal. v. F.B.I., 757 F.3d 870, 872 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2)). The 5 Ninth Circuit mandates “strict compliance with Rule 11’s safe harbor provision.” Id. 6 (citation omitted). Failure to strictly comply with the safe harbor provision bars an award 7 of sanctions under Rule 11(c). See Barber v. Miller, 146 F.3d 707, 710 (9th Cir. 1998) 8 (discussing the safe harbor provision). 9 Here, Mr. Henderson asserts that he served his motion on counsel for LVNV 21 10 days before filing it pursuant to Rule 11(c)(2). (See Mot. at 1.) Mr. Henderson, however, 11 served the motion on Ben Mohandesi of Yu Mohandesi LLP, who apparently represents 12 LVNV in a related state-court collections action, rather than on LVNV’s counsel of 13 record in this case, Robert E. Sabido of Sabido Law, LLC. (See id. (stating the motion 14 was served on Mr. Mohandesi); see Dkt. (listing only Mr. Sabido as LVNV’s counsel in 15 this case); see also Answer (Dkt. # 4) at 7 (including Mr. Sabido’s signature and making 16 no mention of Mr. Mohandesi); Sabido Decl. (Dkt. # 11) ¶¶ 2, 4 (stating that Mr. Sabido 17 did not represent LVNV in the state-court action and that Mr. Henderson did not serve 18 the motion on his firm before filing it).) As a result, Mr. Henderson failed to satisfy Rule 19 11(c)(2) when he served his motion for sanctions on Mr. Mohandesi rather than on Mr. 20 Sabido. Because the Ninth Circuit does not authorize Rule 11 sanctions absent “strict 21 // 22 // 1 compliance” with the safe harbor provision, see Islamic Shura Council, 757 F.3d at 872, 2 the court DENIES Mr. Henderson’s motion for sanctions (Dkt. # 9).1 3 Dated this 20th day of March, 2026. 4 A 5 6 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 Mr. Henderson states that he did not receive LVNV’s response to his motion and only became aware of the response when he checked the electronic docket after the deadline to file his 21 reply expired. (Reply at 1 n.1.) The court recommends that Mr. Henderson register for e-filing so that he promptly receives notice of documents filed in his case. Instructions for doing so are 22 available on the court’s website at: https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself-pro-se