Abraham v. Leigh et al

Filing 628

ORDER denying 623 Motion for Reconsideration. Accordingly, Defendant's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at docket entry 623. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 2/11/2021) (nb)

Case 1:17-cv-05429-KPF Document 628 Filed 02/11/21 Page 1 of 2

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 to pay 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 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 submission. (Dkt. #620-621). By Order dated
January 27, 2021, the Court conditionally denied Defendant’s motion for a
finding of civil contempt without prejudice, after finding that Plaintiff had
adequately demonstrated indigence and requiring Plaintiff to file monthly
submissions, ex parte and under seal, to continue to substantiate her claim of
indigence. (Dkt. #622).

Case 1:17-cv-05429-KPF Document 628 Filed 02/11/21 Page 2 of 2

On February 2, 2021, Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration
and/or clarification of the Court’s January 27, 2021 Order. (See Dkt. #623624). Defendant argues that “to the extent Plaintiff’s compliance with
monetary sanctions is deemed excused,” the Court should impose an
alternative sanction on Plaintiff. (Dkt. #264). The Court has not excused
Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the monetary sanctions at issue. Rather, Plaintiff’s
submissions demonstrate indigence such that the Court does not believe a
finding of civil contempt is justified — at this time — for Plaintiff’s failure to
comply with the Sanctions Order to-date. The Court denied Defendant’s
motion without prejudice because Plaintiff’s obligation to comply with the
Sanctions Order continues and Plaintiff will be expected to comply when she
can no longer demonstrate indigence. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for
reconsideration is DENIED. 1
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at docket
entry 623.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

1

February 11, 2021
New York, New York

__________________________________
KATHERINE POLK FAILLA
United States District Judge

In any event, the Court disagrees that failure to enter judgment against Plaintiff on
Defendant’s counterclaim would cause “manifest injustice” such that a motion for
reconsideration is warranted. As a result of other sanctions imposed on Plaintiff by the
Sanctions Order, which sanctions Defendants claim are now “moot” (i.e., the exclusion
of sanctioned documents), Defendants obtained summary judgment in this action.

2