The City of New York v. Golden Feather Smoke Shop, Inc. et al

Filing 383

ORDER re 373 Letter filed by The City of New York The Citys request for 60 days of further discovery on the issues of liability, damages and other relief is GRANTED. This period will begin to run from January 3, 2012. At the close of the 60 d ays, the City should file a proposed briefing schedule for its motion. The Court will give defendant Watkins until January 17, 2012 to advise the Court whether there is any need for a hearing regarding the factual basis of the Citys damages analysis , or for further legal briefing on the issue of contempt sanctions. If Watkins fails to respond to this order, the Court will resolve the sanctions issue on the basis of the Citys papers. Ordered by Chief Judge Carol Bagley Amon on 12/30/2011. (Amon, Carol)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------------x
THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
Plaintiff,

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
ORDER
08-CV-3966 (CBA)

-againstGOLDEN FEATHER SMOKE SHOP, INC., KIMO
SMOKE SHOP, INC., SMOKE AND ROLLS INC.,
SHAWN MORRISON, KIANA MORRISON, in her
individual capacity, MONIQUE’S SMOKE SHOP,
ERNESTINE WATKINS, in her individual capacity,
JESSEY WATKINS, WAYNE HARRIS, PEACE PIPE
SMOKE SHOP, RODNEY MORRISON, Sr.,
CHARLOTTE MORRISON, in her individual capacity,
RED DOT & FEATHERS SMOKE SHOP, INC.,
RAYMOND HART, in his individual capacity,
SMOKING ARROW SMOKE SHOP, DENISE
PASCHALL, in her individual capacity, TONY D.
PHILLIPS, TDM DISCOUNT CIGARETTES, and
THOMASINA MACK, in her individual capacity,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------x
AMON, Chief United States District Judge:

Pursuant to the Court’s order at the last status conference, the City of New York has filed
a letter detailing how it believes this case should proceed. The City requests a sixty day period
of further discovery, after which it intends to move for summary judgment seeking injunctive
and/or monetary relief.

Also outstanding is the City’s motion for contempt sanctions against

defendants Jessey Watkins. The Court will address each of these issues below.
I.

Discovery and Summary Judgment

The defendants’ primary argument in opposition to the City’s proposal appears to be a
challenge to the legal basis for the relief that the City has indicated it will ultimately seek in this
case. The Court expects that the City’s anticipated summary judgment motion, and the papers
filed in opposition, will brief in detail the legal basis (or lack thereof) for the monetary or
1

injunctive relief that the City requests under the CCTA or other applicable law. This anticipated
dispute does not, however, provide a reason to deny the City a reasonable time to conduct further
discovery on issues relevant to the disposition of this case, including the issue of damages or
other monetary relief. The Court has already denied motions to dismiss, and has imposed and
upheld a preliminary injunction. These rulings have established that the City’s claims for relief
are plausible, and the Court does not believe it appropriate to further fragment the resolution of
this case. Rather, a sixty day window for further discovery is not at all excessive, and the City
should be permitted to file a motion that it believes to be dispositive of all the issues in this
litigation. The defendants will have ample opportunity to contest any and all of the arguments
that the City offers in that motion.
Accordingly, the City’s request for 60 days of further discovery on the issues of
liability, damages and other relief is GRANTED. This period will begin to run from
January 3, 2012. At the close of the 60 days, the City should file a proposed briefing
schedule for its motion.

II.

Contempt Sanctions Against Watkins

The Court found Watkins in contempt of the preliminary injunction on June 25, 2010, but
the issue of sanctions or damages remains to be resolved. The City has indicated that it is
content to rest on its original submission regarding the amount of sanctions to be imposed. On
December 7, 2010, Watkins submitted a letter in opposition to contempt sanctions that was
largely unresponsive to the facts and evidence asserted by the City regarding Watkins’ postinjunction conduct and profits. That letter argued principally that the preliminary injunction was
invalid under the New York Court of Appeals’ decision in Cayuga Indian Nation v. Gould, 14

2

N.Y.3d 614 (2010). The Court already rejected this argument in its August 16, 2011 order
denying the motions to vacate in the injunction. Watkins’ letter did not clearly indicate any
factual dispute with the City’s contempt evidence, nor did it offer any legal arguments related to
the propriety in this case of awarding compensatory contempt damages based on the defendant’s
profits. The Court is well aware of the defendants’ continued belief that the preliminary
injunction should never have issued in the first place. The defendants are not, however, aiding
themselves or the Court by repeatedly deploying the same arguments related to the injunction,
rather than offering productive responses to the other legal issues presented in this litigation.
Moreover, based on Watkins’ letter opposing contempt sanctions, the Court is unable to discern
if there are any disputed issues of fact, relating to the amount of sanctions, that would necessitate
an evidentiary hearing on that issue.
Accordingly, the Court will give Watkins until January 17, 2012 to advise the Court
whether there is any need for a hearing regarding the factual basis of the City’s damages
analysis, or for further legal briefing on the issue of contempt sanctions. If Watkins fails to
respond to this order, the Court will resolve the sanctions issue on the basis of the City’s
papers.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
December 30, 2011
____________/s/_______________
Carol Bagley Amon
Chief United States District Judge

3