Abraham v. Leigh et al

Filing 418

ORDER: In sum, the Court denies Plaintiff's first request for a renewed order seeking pro bono counsel and grants her request for an extension of time to reply to the pending motion for fees and costs. But future submissions to the Court cannot be accompanied by the calumny that pervades Plaintiff's December 8, 2019 letter. In the future, the submissions of this tone will be rejected by the Court. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 12/10/2019) (ks)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ROBYN ABRAHAM,
Plaintiff,
-v.-

17 Civ. 5429 (KPF)
ORDER

ABBY LEIGH, et al.,
Defendants.
KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge:

This Order responds to Plaintiff’s request dated December 8, 2019, which
the Court will docket under seal, and the Leigh Defendants’ response dated
December 9, 2019, which will also be filed under seal. The Court intended to
wait before responding to Plaintiff’s request, lest its promptness be
misconstrued as an acceptance of Plaintiff’s arguments of urgency and
prejudice. However, in light of the speed and content of Defendants’ response,
the Court now enters the fray.
It is noteworthy to the Court that despite repeated remonstrations from
the Court — including a finding of perjury — Plaintiff continues to include
misleading, and at times false, statements in her submissions. The Court has
no need to detail all such statements in this Order, but it notes that Plaintiff
has repeatedly mischaracterized the conduct of the Leigh Defendants, the
procedural history of this case, and the content of the Court’s Orders in her
submissions to the Court. The Court writes to underscore that this alternate
narrative must cease, and that Plaintiff must take greater care to represent
fairly the statements of the Court and opposing counsel.

Distilled to its essence, Plaintiff’s letter makes two requests. The first
asks the Court to renew its request for pro bono counsel for Plaintiff. (Dkt.
#260). On the current record, Plaintiff’s request is denied. The Court is
unaware of the specifics of Plaintiff’s settlement with Defendants Wasserman
and Honig, and does not by issuing this Order wish to know the details of that
settlement. However, the Court recalls statements from Plaintiff’s prior
counsel that suggested to the Court that Plaintiff was no longer in need of pro
bono counsel. (Dkt. #397). Indeed, Plaintiff’s scheduled interviews with
prospective counsel suggest that she no longer needs pro bono counsel.
Further, the Court surmises that pro bono counsel is unlikely to consent to
represent Plaintiff, given that the fact that Plaintiff is herself an attorney. For
these reasons, the request is denied.
Plaintiff’s second request is for an extension until January 21, 2020, to
respond to the Leigh Defendant’s motion for fees and costs in accordance with
this Court’s imposition of sanctions against Plaintiff. (Dkt. #371, 407). Given
the medical issues described by Plaintiff and her continuing efforts to secure
counsel, this request is granted. Plaintiff must understand, however, that no
further extensions will be granted under any circumstances. What is more,
the Court does not accept Plaintiff’s arguments concerning the deposition of
Joseph Smith. To put it more pointedly, the Court categorically rejects
Plaintiff’s arguments that her need for an extension of time to respond to the
motion for fees and costs is the product of misconduct by the Leigh Defendants
or their counsel.
2

In sum, the Court denies Plaintiff’s first request for a renewed order
seeking pro bono counsel and grants her request for an extension of time to
reply to the pending motion for fees and costs. But future submissions to
the Court cannot be accompanied by the calumny that pervades Plaintiff’s
December 8, 2019 letter. In the future, the submissions of this tone will be
rejected by the Court.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 10, 2019
New York, New York

__________________________________
KATHERINE POLK FAILLA
United States District Judge

3