Abraham v. Leigh et al

Filing 583

ORDER terminating 543 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. After careful consideration of the parties' submissions (see Dkt. #540,542-544, 555, 564-570, 576, 578, 581), and of the arguments raised at theOctober 19, 2020 hearing, the Court de clines to exercise ancillary jurisdictionover any dispute between Plaintiff Robyn Abraham and her former counsel -Marcia Wiss, her firm Wiss & Partners, and Colleen Kerwick - over an allegedviolation of a "peace clause" in the settlement ag reement between the parties.(See Dkt. #379). At the time Plaintiff and her former counsel entered into theiragreement, the parties did not ask the Court to retain jurisdiction over itsenforcement (see Dkt. #372, 379, 382), and the Court does not beli eve that itshould adjudicate a dispute that arose after the events at issue in this case andthat is unrelated to the underlying claims in this litigation. Therefore, to theextent the parties seek to determine the validity vel non of the peace clause, they must resolve this dispute in another court of competent jurisdiction.That said, the Court retains, and has a duty to exercise, its inherentauthority to supervise and control the proceedings before it. As explained inprior opinions, Plaintiff 9;s relationship with her former counsel is irrelevant to any of the claims at issue in this litigation. See, e.g., Abraham v. Leigh, No. 17Civ. 5429 (KPF), 2020 WL 5512718 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2020), reconsiderationdenied, No. 17 Civ. 5429 (KPF), 202 0 WL 5836511 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2020);Abraham v. Leigh, No. 17 Civ. 5429 (KPF), 2020 WL 3833424 (S.D.N.Y. July 8,2020), reconsideration denied, No. 17 Civ. 5429 (KPF), 2020 WL 5095655(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2020). Given the number and the tenor of Plaintif f'ssubmissions in recent months in particular, their increasing attenuationfrom the relevant issues in this case, the record, and the truth the Court iseven more convinced that it must exercise this inherent power in order toprevent Plaintiff from clogging the Court's docket with sensitive, irrelevant, andpossibly false information about Plaintiff's former counsel. From this point forward, Plaintiff shall not file any submission in thiscase regarding Ms. Kerwick, Ms. Wiss, Wiss & Partners, and/or Plaintiff'srelationship with them, absent leave of Court. Should Plaintiff violate thisOrder, the Court will consider the arsenal of sanctions available to it, includingcivil and criminal contempt, monetary sanctions, and defa ult in the underlyingaction. See Mitchell v. Lyons Prof'l Servs., Inc., 708 F.3d 463, 467 (2d Cir.2013) ("Every district court 'has the inherent power to supervise and control itsown proceedings and to sanction counsel or a litigant fo r... disobeying thecourt's orders.'" (alteration in original) (quoting Mickle v. Morin, 297 F.3d 114,125 (2d Cir. 2002)). Further, the Court categorically rejects Plaintiff'ssuggestion that her pending appeal to the United States Court of Appeals forthe Second Circuit requires her to place any additional information regardingher issues with prior counsel on the docket of this case. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at docket entry543.SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 10/21/2020) (rro)

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:

After careful consideration of the parties’ submissions (see Dkt. #540,
542-544, 555, 564-570, 576, 578, 581), and of the arguments raised at the
October 19, 2020 hearing, the Court declines to exercise ancillary jurisdiction
over any dispute between Plaintiff Robyn Abraham and her former counsel —
Marcia Wiss, her firm Wiss & Partners, and Colleen Kerwick — over an alleged
violation of a “peace clause” in the settlement agreement between the parties.
(See Dkt. #379). At the time Plaintiff and her former counsel entered into their
agreement, the parties did not ask the Court to retain jurisdiction over its
enforcement (see Dkt. #372, 379, 382), and the Court does not believe that it
should adjudicate a dispute that arose after the events at issue in this case and
that is unrelated to the underlying claims in this litigation. Therefore, to the
extent the parties seek to determine the validity vel non of the peace clause,
they must resolve this dispute in another court of competent jurisdiction.
That said, the Court retains, and has a duty to exercise, its inherent
authority to supervise and control the proceedings before it. As explained in
prior opinions, Plaintiff’s relationship with her former counsel is irrelevant to

any of the claims at issue in this litigation. See, e.g., Abraham v. Leigh, No. 17
Civ. 5429 (KPF), 2020 WL 5512718 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2020), reconsideration
denied, No. 17 Civ. 5429 (KPF), 2020 WL 5836511 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2020);
Abraham v. Leigh, No. 17 Civ. 5429 (KPF), 2020 WL 3833424 (S.D.N.Y. July 8,
2020), reconsideration denied, No. 17 Civ. 5429 (KPF), 2020 WL 5095655
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2020). Given the number and the tenor of Plaintiff’s
submissions in recent months — in particular, their increasing attenuation
from the relevant issues in this case, the record, and the truth — the Court is
even more convinced that it must exercise this inherent power in order to
prevent Plaintiff from clogging the Court’s docket with sensitive, irrelevant, and
possibly false information about Plaintiff’s former counsel.
From this point forward, Plaintiff shall not file any submission in this
case regarding Ms. Kerwick, Ms. Wiss, Wiss & Partners, and/or Plaintiff’s
relationship with them, absent leave of Court. Should Plaintiff violate this
Order, the Court will consider the arsenal of sanctions available to it, including
civil and criminal contempt, monetary sanctions, and default in the underlying
action. See Mitchell v. Lyons Prof’l Servs., Inc., 708 F.3d 463, 467 (2d Cir.
2013) (“Every district court ‘has the inherent power to supervise and control its
own proceedings and to sanction counsel or a litigant for ... disobeying the
court’s orders.’” (alteration in original) (quoting Mickle v. Morin, 297 F.3d 114,
125 (2d Cir. 2002)). Further, the Court categorically rejects Plaintiff’s
suggestion that her pending appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit requires her to place any additional information regarding
her issues with prior counsel on the docket of this case.
2

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at docket entry
543.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 21, 2020
New York, New York

__________________________________
KATHERINE POLK FAILLA
United States District Judge

3