Cessna Finance Corporation v. Al Ghaith Holding Company PJSC

Filing 129

MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: (55) Response in Opposition to Motion re: 49 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Khalifa Hamel Khadem Al Ghaith Al Qubaisi, Al Ghaith Holding Company PJSC, Ghaith Hamel Khadem Al Ghaith Al Qubaisi, Ali Hamel Khadem Al Ghaith Al Quba isi in case 1:21-cv-01395-PGG. ENDORSEMENT: Respondents' opposition papers are due by January 7, 2022. Petitioner's reply, if any, is due January 14, 2022. SO ORDERED. ( Responses due by 1/7/2022, Replies due by 1/14/2022.) (Signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe on 12/17/2021) (vfr)

Case 1:15-cv-09857-PGG-KNFDocument 55 Filed 12/16/21 Page 1 of 2 2
Case 1:21-cv-01395-PGG
Document 129 Filed 12/17/21 Page 1 of

December 16, 2021
Via ECF
Honorable Paul G. Gardephe
United States District Judge
Southern District of New York
40 Foley Square, Room 2204
New York, New York 10007
Re:

MEMO ENDORSED:
Respondents' opposition papers are
due by January 7, 2022. Petitioner's
reply, if any, is due January 14, 2022.

Cesfin Ventures LLC v. Al Ghaith HoldingDated: December 17, 2022
Company, et al., 1:21-cv-01395-PGG
Dated: December 17 ,2021
(“2021 Action”)
Cesfin Ventures LLC v. Al Ghaith Holding Company, et al., 1:15-cv-09857-PGG
(“2015 Action”)

Dear Judge Gardephe:
This firm represents Respondents Ali Hamel Khadem Al Ghaith Al Qubaisi, Ghaith Hamel
Khadem Al Ghaith Al Qubaisi, and Khalifa Hamel Khadem Al Ghaith Al Qubaisi (“Ghaiths”) in
the 2021 Action. We write in response to Petitioner’s letter dated December 16, 2021 objecting to
the Ghaith’s request for a briefing schedule in connection with Petitioner’s Motion for Sanctions
filed on November 30, 2021 (“Motion”). In short, a briefing schedule is necessary because
Petitioner violated Your Honor’s Individual Rules of Practice and Local Civil Rules by filing the
Motion as against the Ghaiths without obtaining court leave or conferring with the Ghaiths’
counsel.
Petitioner’s disregard that their motion for sanctions as against the Ghaiths is improper in the first
instance for three reasons. First, Petitioner’s motion as against the Ghaiths is premature because
the Ghaiths neither answered the Petition nor have been served with discovery. Hand Picked
Selections, Inc. v. Handpicked Wines Int'l Pty, Ltd., No. CV 06-0356 (FB)(JO), 2006 WL 1720442,
at *3 (E.D.N.Y. June 22, 2006) (holding that where a party had not yet answered “any attempt to
serve a request for party discovery on AM was premature, and cannot serve as the predicate for
sanctions under Rule 37.”). In fact, at the most recent conference on November 9, 2021, the Court
indicated that the next steps would involve serving the Ghaiths with discovery demands rather than
a motion for sanctions against parties that recently appeared.
Second, Petitioner’s counsel never conferred with the Ghaiths’ counsel prior to making its Motion
as required under Your Honor’s Individual Rule of Practice IV.A.1 See also Pro Bono Invs., Inc.
1

In fact, in Petitioner’s counsel’s letter application initially seeking sanctions, they admit they
never conferred with counsel for the Ghaiths, stating only that “By November 4 and 5, 2021 emails, we sent a draft of this letter to Wasser & Russ, LLP (“Wasser & Russ”), AGH’s counsel,
seeking “AGH’s Position.” Wasser & Russ has not responded to our e-mails.” 2019 ECF Doc. No.
119.
Westbury | Ronkonkoma | Riverhead
4175 Veterans Memorial Highway, Ronkonkoma, NY 11779

Case 1:15-cv-09857-PGG-KNFDocument 55 Filed 12/16/21 Page 2 of 2 2
Case 1:21-cv-01395-PGG
Document 129 Filed 12/17/21 Page 2 of
December 16, 2021
Page 2
v. Gerry, No. 03 CIV. 4347 (JGK), 2005 WL 2429767, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2005) (“Pro
Bono’s motion pursuant to Rule 37 is denied. By its terms, Rule 37 requires a meet-and-confer
conference and authorizes sanctions only after a motion is granted or discovery is made after a
motion is filed.”); Local Civil Rule 37.3(a) (“Prior to seeking judicial resolution of a discovery or
non-dispositive pre-trial dispute, the attorneys for the affected parties or non-party witness shall
attempt to confer in good faith in person or by telephone in an effort to resolve the dispute.”).
Finally, Petitioner never sought or obtained leave to file a motion for sanctions as against the
Ghaiths individually. 2021 Action ECF Doc. No 47 (“ORDER: For the reasons stated in open court
yesterday . . . . As to any motions for sanctions against Defendant Al Ghaith Holding Company,
Plaintiff's counsel must file its submission by November 30, 2021. SO ORDERED.”).
Given these circumstances, there is no prejudice that warrants depriving the Ghaiths the
opportunity to respond to Petitioner’s motion for sanctions. Laface v. E. Suffolk BOCES, No.
218CV1314ADSAKT, 2019 WL 4696434, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2019) (“To the extent that
the Plaintiff moves for leave to file his opposition to the sanctions motion, that motion is granted,
because . . . it does not appear that the Defendant[s] will suffer any prejudice by this nunc pro tunc
extension.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Petitioner’s leave was limited to sanctions
against AGH—not the Ghaiths—and the 2021 Action remains at such infancy stages such that
there will not be any prejudice if an extension is granted to respond to additional arguments
Petitioner never obtained leave to make. Hand Picked Selections, Inc., 2006 WL 1720442, at *3.
Accordingly, the Ghaiths respectfully request a briefing schedule permitting them to respond to
Petitioner’s Motion made without leave wherein opposition be received January 7, 2022 and
Petitioner’s reply be served on a date convenient to Petitioner.
Respectfully submitted,
CAMPOLO, MIDDLETON
& McCORMICK, LLP

________________________
By: Patrick McCormick, Esq.
Richard A. DeMaio, Esq.
Attorneys for the Ghaiths

cc:

All parties via ECF