Abraham v. Leigh et al

Filing 622

ORDER terminating 573 Motion. Accordingly, Defendant's motion for a finding of civil contempt is conditionally DENIED without prejudice; however, the Court will revisit this decision should Plaintiff fail to substantiate her claim of poverty as specified in this Order. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at docket entry 573. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 1/27/2021) (nb)

Case 1:17-cv-05429-KPF Document 622 Filed 01/27/21 Page 1 of 4

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:

On September 14, 2020, the Court ordered Plaintiff Robyn Abraham to
pay $53,144.60 in attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Defendant Abby Leigh,
as Executrix of the Estate of Mitch Leigh (“Defendant”), in connection with the
Court’s partial grant of a sanctions motion in Defendant’s favor. (Dkt. #539
(the “Sanctions Order”); see also Dkt. #371 (granting motion for sanctions), 409
(transcript)). To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the Sanctions Order. By
Order dated December 21, 2020, the Court held its decision on Defendant’s
pending motion for a finding of civil contempt in abeyance pending a
supplemental submission from Plaintiff to: (i) substantiate her claim of poverty,
and (ii) demonstrate her diligence in attempting to comply with the Sanctions
Order. On January 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed her ex parte submissions. (Dkt.
#620-621). Plaintiff also requested that the Court allow her to file her ex parte
submissions on the public docket. (Dkt. #620). For the reasons that follow,
the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request to file her ex parte submissions on the

Case 1:17-cv-05429-KPF Document 622 Filed 01/27/21 Page 2 of 4

public docket, and conditionally DENIES without prejudice Defendant’s motion
for a finding of civil contempt.1
Plaintiff seeks to have her ex parte submissions filed on the public
docket. (See Dkt. #620). But these submissions reiterate demonstrably false
allegations that have been repeatedly rejected by the Court. (See, e.g., Dkt.
#583, 615). See also 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). The Court
previously granted Plaintiff leave to file a supplemental ex parte submission
only “to substantiate her poverty and her diligence in attempting to comply
with the Sanctions Order between September 14, 2020, and the present.” (Dkt.
#615). The spurious allegations and arguments contained in Plaintiff’s
submissions are completely unrelated to Plaintiff’s diligence in complying with
the Sanctions Order and verge on the vexatious. Therefore, the Court denies
Plaintiff’s request to have these largely irrelevant documents, filled with
demonstrably false conspiracies, on the public docket.
Turning to the substance of the instant dispute, Plaintiff raises several
arguments to attempt to substantiate the poverty that she claims excuses her
from complying with the Sanctions Order. (See Dkt. #621). The Court has

1

Because the Court’s decision is based in part on information submitted to it in camera
by Plaintiff, this Order is docketed in a redacted form and submitted to Plaintiff in an
unredacted form.

2

Case 1:17-cv-05429-KPF Document 622 Filed 01/27/21 Page 3 of 4

rejected several of them already, and reiterates that the Court did not force
Plaintiff to enter into the settlement agreement, and thus is not responsible for
Plaintiff’s obligations under that agreement. See Abraham v. Leigh, No. 17 Civ.
5429 (KPF), 2020 WL 5095655, at *4-6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2020). Nor has
Plaintiff accounted for the disposition of the significant sum of money that she
received as part of the settlement agreement. (See Dkt. #615). However, the
Court does credit as proof of Plaintiff’s indigence

. Plaintiff avers

. Accordingly, to substantiate her ongoing claim of
poverty, Plaintiff is directed to file — ex parte and under seal —

. Plaintiff shall submit

once

a month, on or by the first day of the next month.2 Accordingly, Defendant’s
motion for a finding of civil contempt is conditionally DENIED without
prejudice; however, the Court will revisit this decision should Plaintiff fail to
substantiate her claim of poverty as specified in this Order.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at docket
entry 573.

2

For example, on or by March 1, 2021, Plaintiff shall submit a copy of
in each of the following weeks: the week of February 1, 2021; the week of
February 8, 2021; the week of February 15, 2021; and the week of February 22, 2021.

3

Case 1:17-cv-05429-KPF Document 622 Filed 01/27/21 Page 4 of 4

SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 27, 2021
New York, New York

__________________________________
KATHERINE POLK FAILLA
United States District Judge

4