Bunnell et al v. Haghighi

Filing 99

MEMORANDUM & ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Finding no clear error in the unobjected-to portions, MJ Gold's Report and Recommendation 96 is adopted in full. The Court directs the Clerk to enter judgment in accordance with the Report and Recommendation. Ordered by Judge Frederic Block on 4/29/2016. (Innelli, Michael)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------x
KATHLEEN BUNNELL and
DENNIS BUNNELL,
Plaintiffs,
-against-

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
12-CV-6412 (FB) (SMG)

FARZAD HAGHIGHI,
Defendant.
--------------------------------------------------x

Appearances:
For the Plaintiff:
DEAN T. CHO, ESQ.
233 Broadway, Suite 2200
New York, NY 10279

For the Defendant:
DANIEL ALLIANCE, ESQ.
159-13 Hillside Avenue
Jamaica, NY 11432

BLOCK, Senior District Judge:
Plaintiffs Kathleen and Dennis Bunnell moved for sanctions and attorney’s fees
under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and CPLR § 6514(c). The Court
referred the motion for a report and recommendation (R&R) to Magistrate Judge Steven
M. Gold. On March 2, 2016, Judge Gold issued the R&R recommending that the Court
grant the motion against defendant’s counsel, Daniel Alliance (“Alliance”), for
$14,954.31, and hold Alliance’s co-counsel, Michael Alliance, jointly and severally
liable for $1,842.50 of that amount.
Alliance filed an opposition to the R&R in which he asks the Court to consider

an alternative method of sanctioning him, specifically, to order him to attend CLE
courses in lieu of ordering him to pay the sum recommended by Judge Gold. Alliance
did not object to any of the factual findings in the R&R. Accordingly, the Court will
determine the appropriate sanction de novo, but will review the remainder of the R&R
for clear error. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.”).
The R&R explains in detail how Alliance litigated in bad faith. While the Court
agrees with Alliance that CLE courses would be of benefit, they would not compensate
the Bunnells for the costs and fees they incurred due to Alliance’s filing of a clearly
improper lis pendens, refusal to withdraw false assertions made to the Court, filing a
frivolous opposition, and failure to obey an order of Judge Gold’s. The R&R limited
the award to the Bunnells’ costs and attorney’s fees related to Alliance’s bad conduct
and the sanctions itself. The sum recommended in the R&R is reasonable.

2

Finding no clear error in the unobjected-to portions, the R&R is adopted in full.
The Court directs the Clerk to enter judgment in accordance with the R&R.

SO ORDERED.
/S/ Frederic Block_
FREDERIC BLOCK
Senior United States District Judge
Brooklyn, New York
April 29, 2016

3