Abraham v. Leigh et al

Filing 799

ORDER denying 798 Motion to Disqualify Judge. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in this Order, the Court DENIES Ms. Abraham's motion to disqualify. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 798. This Order does not affect any other deadlines in the case, and the Court considers its Order to Show Cause (Dkt. #760) to be fully briefed. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 8/1/2023) (rro)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ROBYN ABRAHAM,
Plaintiff,
-v.ABBY LEIGH, in her Individual Capacity, as
Executrix of the Estate of Mitch Leigh, and as
Trustee for The Viola Fund and Abby Leigh Ltd.,

17 Civ. 5429 (KPF)
ORDER

Defendant.
KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge:
The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify the Court from
this case. (Dkt. #798). This motion — Plaintiff’s fourth in this matter — largely
reiterates her misstatements of the record in this case and her patently false
allegations made in her third motion to disqualify (Dkt. #761-762), all of which
the Court considered and rejected in its corresponding order denying that
motion to disqualify (Dkt. #774).
Most troublingly, Plaintiff returns to her false and disparaging
accusations that the Court participated in ex parte discussions with a judge
presiding over a separate case involving Plaintiff in Florida state court. As has
been previously stated, the Court has had no communication with that judge
or with anyone else involved in the Florida case about that case except Plaintiff
herself. The Court has exhibited enormous patience in dealing with Plaintiff’s
repeated and vexatious filings, as well as Plaintiff’s impertinent litigation
conduct more broadly. However, Plaintiff is advised that her persistence in

pushing this fictitious narrative, including by filing last-minute motions like
the present one, risks the imposition of additional sanctions.
New to Plaintiff’s fourth motion to disqualify are Plaintiff’s objections to
the Court’s orders (Dkt. #793, 795) informing Plaintiff that the Court will not
consider any additional exhibits filed with Plaintiff’s reply to the Court’s Order
to Show Cause. Plaintiff’s relevant request to file additional exhibits (Dkt.
#794) was devoid of any specific information as to the content of the exhibits
she planned to file, which provided the Court with no reasonable basis to
believe that any purported exhibits actually existed. The Court’s heavy
skepticism is further supported by Plaintiff’s own representation in her request
that “Plaintiff has not been able to obtain further information as of this date.”
(Id.). This comes after prior representations by Plaintiff to this Court that
“Plaintiff has provided all that which is available.” (Dkt. #779).
Plaintiff has been given months to locate her medical records and other
information that should be accessible to her. Plaintiff has proffered no
legitimate justification as to why she has been unable to locate such
information, or why granting more time would bring about a different result.
Plaintiff’s admission of her inability to locate such records on the eve of the
long-established deadline for Plaintiff’s reply provided the Court with no
reasonable basis for granting Plaintiff yet another extension or otherwise
modifying the Court’s prior orders. The Court has already granted Plaintiff
numerous extensions and has been clear with Plaintiff about deadlines and

2

expectations. (See, e.g., Dkt. #778 (extending Plaintiff’s time to respond to the
Order to Show Cause)).
At best, Plaintiff’s most recent request represented a misguided attempt
to invoke generosity of the Court. More realistically — and when read in the
context of Plaintiff’s prior litigation conduct — Plaintiff’s request approached a
bad-faith dilatory tactic designed to undermine the proceedings before this
Court. (See, e.g., Dkt. #759 (“Plaintiff’s delay appears to lead to the inexorable
conclusion that Plaintiff intended to bring this motion at the last possible
moment, and thus to obtain another trial adjournment.”)). Under either view,
the Order denying Plaintiff’s request to file exhibits was appropriate and does
not represent bias or prejudice by the Court.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in this Order, the Court DENIES
Ms. Abraham’s motion to disqualify. The Clerk of Court is directed to
terminate the pending motion at docket entry 798. This Order does not affect
any other deadlines in the case, and the Court considers its Order to Show
Cause (Dkt. #760) to be fully briefed.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 1, 2023
New York, New York
KATHERINE POLK FAILLA
United States District Judge

3