Abraham v. Leigh et al

Plaintiff:	Robyn Abraham
Defendant:	Abby Leigh, Martha Wasserman, Hellen Darion and Alan Honig
Case Number:	1:2017cv05429
Filed:	July 18, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
Presiding Judge:	Katherine Polk Failla
Nature of Suit:	Other Contract
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1332
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Date Filed	Document Text
November 7, 2023	Filing 804 ORDER denying 802 Motion to Vacate 802 EMERGENCY MOTION to Vacate 801 Clerk's Judgment,,, 800 Order,,, . Application DENIED. Counterclaim Defendant does not cite any authority supporting her self-styled "Emergen cy Motion to Vacate." Nor does Counterclaim Defendant demonstrate any entitlement to relief under any of the potentially applicable provisions of Federal or Local Rules, as discussed below. First, Counterclaim Defendant has not timely filed a n otice of motion for reconsideration pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.3, which Rule requires such notice be served "within fourteen (14) days after the entry of the judgment." Judgment in this case was entered by the Clerk on October 16, 2023, such that Counterclaim Defendant's deadline was October 30, 2023. Next, Counterclaim Defendant is not entitled to any alteration or amendment of the Court's judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). To prevail on a motion pursu ant to Rule 59(e), a party must demonstrate that the Court overlooked "controlling law or factual matters" that had previously been put before it. R.F.M.A.S., Inc. v. Mimi So, 640 F. Supp. 2d 506, 508-09 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). Such motions must b e narrowly construed and strictly applied in order to discourage litigants from making repetitive arguments on issues that have been thoroughly considered by the court. Range Road Music, Inc. v. Music Sales Corp., 90 F. Supp. 2d 390, 391-92 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). Far from having overlooked the factual matters of Counterclaim Defendant's case, the Court has spent an exorbitant amount of time reviewing Counterclaim Defendant's irrelevant and fabricated documents, and addressing Countercla im Defendant's bad faith submissions and baseless arguments, all in an attempt to resolve this six-year-old case. As detailed extensively in this Court's October 16, 2023 Order, Counterclaim Defendant has provided no basis for the Cou rt to believe that Counterclaim Defendant possesses any of the above- referenced medical records, despite the Court having afforded her ample time to obtain and produce them. (Dkt. #800 ("Oct. 16, 2023 Order") at 5-7, 11-13). Even in the above motion, Counterclaim Defendant does not actually represent that she is now in possession of these illusory medical records. Rather, Counterclaim Defendant simply suggests that the records were not available during the window in which Co unterclaim Defendant had to respond to the Order to Show Cause, as the tests results had not yet been returned. This is now the third conflicting explanation provided by Counterclaim Defendant for why she has not been able to obtain these record s. Recall that first, Counterclaim Defendant explained that she could not obtain her own records due to them having been protected under California and Federal law, an explanation that was demonstrably false. (See Oct. 16, 2023 Order 11-12). Next, Counterclaim Defendant represented that there were no additional records to produce, which representation Counterclaim Defendant contradicted in her subsequent emergency motion to disqualify. (See id. at 7-8 (citing Dkt. #799 at 1-2)). Counterclaim Defendant can do no better in her third version of events, which ultimately returns to the same repetitive arguments on issues that have been exhaustively considered by this Court. As such, Countercla Defendant has not established any claim for relief under Rule 59(e). By the same token, Counterclaim Defendant is not entitled to relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2), which Rule concerns "newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could n ot have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b)." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2). For one, Counterclaim Defendant has yet to demonstrate that any newly discovered evidence actually exists, making any such Rule 60(b)(2) applica tion a nonstarter. Moreover, Counterclaim Defendant's conduct in this case is hardly a study in reasonable diligence. Rather, and for over two years, Counterclaim Defendant endeavored to delay the one-day bench trial of the last remaining counte rclaim in this case, culminating in the events detailed in the Court's May 2, 2023 Order to Show Cause (Dkt. #760) and subsequent October 16, 2023 Order (Dkt. #800). Along the way, Counterclaim Defendant has resorted to the fabrication of docume nts and making of false statements, both of which actions militate strongly against providing Counterclaim Defendant with any relief from the Court's entry of default judgment. (See Oct. 16, 2023 Order 8, 15 n.5, 18-20). Therefore, to the extent that Counterclaim Defendant seeks relief under Rule 60(b)(2), such relief is also denied. The sideshow that has been Counterclaim Defendant's bad faith conduct in thismatter must at some point come to a close. The only remaining submission soug ht from Counterclaim Defendant is an opposition to the fee petition filed by Counterclaim Plaintiff. (See Dkt. #803). Counterclaim Defendant shall file that opposition on or before November 27, 2023. If Counterclaim Defendant files any other document s that are frivolous or meritless, the Court may direct Counterclaim Defendant to show cause why she should not be barred from filing further documents in this action. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this or der would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motion at docket number 802. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 11/7/2023) (rro)
October 16, 2023	Filing 801 CLERK'S JUDGMENT re: 800 Order in favor of Abby Leigh against Robyn Abraham. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that for the reasons stated in the Court's Order dated October 16, 2023, the Court finds that Counterclaim Plaintiff is entitled to a default judgment on her counterclaim and to the recovery of fees. Judgment is entered on the counterclaim in favor of Counterclaim Plaintiff and the case is closed. Counterclaim Plaintiff is directed to submit an opening submission on her fee petition on or before November 6, 2023. Counterclaim Defendant may then submit an opposition submission to the fee petition on or before November 27, 2023. The Court will advise the parties if it believes a reply submission is warranted. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 10/16/2023) (Attachments: # 1 Appeal Package) (tp)
August 1, 2023	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)
July 21, 2023	Filing 795 MEMO ENDORSEMENT denying 794 Motion re: 794 MOTION To File Additional Exhibits with Sur Reply by July 28 2023 . ENDORSEMENT: Application DENIED. The bench trial that is the issue of thisorder to show cause and Counter-Claim Def endant's responses wasthree months ago, and Counter-Claim Defendant has had ampleopportunity to submit evidence to this Court. Counter-ClaimDefendant is clearly aware of the Court's June 29, 2023 Order(Dkt. #793) directing the filing of a s hort reply by July 21,2023, as it is cited in her above motion. Counter-ClaimDefendant has had three weeks to prepare a reply with fullunderstanding of the Court's indication that it will not extendthis deadline. This last-minute request, filed on the eve ofthat July 21, 2023 deadline, offers no real justification for anextension, and is therefore denied.Consistent with the Court's prior Order at docket number 793,Counter-Claim Defendant may submit a reply by the end of the daytoday, J uly 21, 2023. As ordered, the Court will not considerany additional exhibits, nor any submission longer than tenpages. Should Counter-Claim Defendant fail to submit a timelyresponse, the Court will consider the issue fully briefed.The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motionat docket number 794.. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 7/21/2023) (rro)
June 29, 2023	Filing 793 ORDER: On June 29, 2023, Counter-Claim Plaintiff submitted a response to Counter-Claim Defendant's submission related to the Court's order to show cause. (Dkt. #791-792). Counter-Claim Defendant may submit a reply, not to exceed ten (10) p ages in length, by July 21, 2023. The Court will not consider any submission longer than ten pages, and will not consider additional exhibits. The Court will not extend this deadline; if Counter-Claim Defendant fails to submit a response by July 21, 2023, the Court will consider the issue fully briefed. ( Replies due by 7/21/2023.) (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 6/29/2023) (rro)
June 23, 2023	Filing 790 ORDER: The Court is in receipt of Counter-claim Defendant's response to the Court's order to show Cause (Dkt. #779), as well as a number of supporting exhibits (Dkt. #780-789). Counter-claim Plaintiff may file a response to this submission by July 10, 2023. This response shall not exceed 10 pages in length double-spaced. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 6/23/2023) (ks)
May 19, 2023	Filing 776 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on Plaintiff/Counter-Defendants's Motion for New Jury Trial Dates Following Plaintiff's May 2, 2023 Beverly Hills Cedars Sinai Hospitalization: denying 775 Motion re: 775 MOTION New Jury Trial Dates Following Pla intiff's May 2, 2023 Hospitalization. ENDORSEMENT: Application DENIED. The Court will not address the majority of the factual allegations in Ms. Abraham's above motion. (See Dkt. #774). The Court has not set a new trial date in this case be cause Ms. Abraham is presently required to respond to the Court's order to show cause by May 23, 2023. (Dkt. #760). To the extent Plaintiff seeks a jury trial on the only remaining counterclaim, the Court has already denied Plaintiff's requ est to this effect two years ago and held that the counterclaim would be heard through a bench trial. (Dkt. #657 (July 12, 2021 Order)). This Order does not affect Ms. Abraham's obligation to respond to the order to show cause by May 23, 2023. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 775. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 5/19/2023) (ama)
May 16, 2023	Filing 774 ORDER denying 761 Motion to Disqualify Judge; denying 762 Motion to Disqualify Judge. The Court is in receipt of Ms. Abraham's motion to disqualify the Court from this case (Dkt. #761-762), as well as a number of attached exhibits. It i s difficult for the Court to engage with this most recent filing, which is once again filled with misstatements of the record in this case and patently false allegations. What is more, Plaintiff's motion accuses the Court of meddling in an u nrelated Florida proceeding of which this Court was not aware, presided over by a judge this Court does not know and has never contacted, concerning Ms. Abraham's mother's care. The Court is of course saddened by Ms. Abraham's mothe r's passing, and hopes that Ms. Abraham and her family can find solace in this difficult period. But accusing the Court of engaging in "ex parte discussions" with the judge presiding over the Florida case, "result[ing] in Joyc e Abraham's untimely recent death", is both false and disparaging. The Court DENIES Ms. Abraham's motion. This Order does not affect any other deadlines in this case, and the Court expects that Ms. Abraham will respond to its Order to Show Cause by May 23, 2023. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motions at docket entries 761 and 762. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 5/16/2023) (vfr)
December 23, 2022	Filing 755 ORDER: Since the Courts adjournment of the one-day bench trial in this case nearly three weeks ago, the Court has attempted to work with the parties to reschedule the trial to a date convenient for the parties and the Court. However, due to my riad scheduling conflicts, those efforts have failed. As such, the Court has no choice but to set a trial date itself, and expects the parties to set their schedules accordingly. The bench trial in this case shall commence on May 2, 2023, at 9:00 a .m., in Courtroom 618 of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York. The Court anticipates the trial day to run from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. This trial date more than four months from now provides Plaintiff adequate tim e to retain new counsel if she so chooses, and also provides Defendant time to work out any witness scheduling issues. The Court does not anticipate adjusting this trial date. (Bench Trial set for 5/2/2023 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 618, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Katherine Polk Failla.) (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 12/23/2022) (rro)
December 19, 2022	Filing 754 ORDER: In light of Mr. Douglass's response, the Court grants Plaintiff's request to terminate Mr. Douglass as her counsel of record. In Plaintiff's third declaration in support of termination of Joshua Douglass as counsel of record, Plaintiff seeks an order from the Court (i) terminating Mr. Douglass from this case; (ii) compelling Mr. Douglass to repay Plaintiff's retainer; and (iii) granting Plaintiff a reasonable adjournment of the trial in this case to retain substitu te counsel. (Dkt. #744 at 3). The Court will not order Mr. Douglass to repay Plaintiff's retainer in this case, as this matter is a private dispute beyond this Court's involvement in the instant case. Moreover, as noted in Mr. Douglass 9;s ex parte submission, there are other outstanding fee-related issues between Mr. Douglass and Plaintiff in other cases. The Court will separately work with the parties to schedule a trial date that is convenient for the parties and the Court's schedule. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Joshua Douglass from the docket in this case. Attorney Joshua Alan Douglass terminated. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 12/19/2022) (rro)
December 15, 2022	Filing 745 ORDER: On December 12, 2022, the Court ordered Joshua Douglass to respond to Plaintiff's letters and motions about his representation in this case by December 14, 2022. (Dkt. #743 (December 12, 2022 Order); Dkt. #735, 737-738, 742 (Plaintiff& #039;s letters and motions pertaining to Mr. Douglass)). Since the December 12, 2022 Order, Plaintiff has filed another submission in support of terminating Mr. Douglass as counsel of record. (Dkt. #744). Mr. Douglass has failed to submit a respon se in line with the Court's December 12, 2022 Order. Accordingly, Mr. Douglass is hereby ORDERED to respond to Plaintiff's representations, and address the issues of reparability of his relationship with Plaintiff and whether he is asser ting a retaining or charging lien for his work associated with this case. Mr. Douglass shall submit his response by December 16, 2022, and shall file his submission on an ex parte basis, viewable only to Plaintiff and this Court. If Mr. Douglass fails to respond, he may be found in contempt for repeatedly violating this Court's Orders. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 12/15/2022) (rro)
December 12, 2022	Filing 743 ORDER: On December 2, 2022, Plaintiff submitted a letter to the Court, requesting that the Court terminate Joshua Douglass as counsel of record in this case. (Dkt. #735). That letter indicates that Mr. Douglass has refused to communicate with Plai ntiff about this case, and that he has threatened Plaintiff. (Id.). Plaintiff made similar representations in two motions she filed with the Court on December 5, 2022. (Dkt. #737-738). Finally, on December 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed a supplemental mo tion to terminate Mr. Douglass as counsel of record. (Dkt. #742). Accordingly, in line with Local Rule 1.4, Mr. Douglass is ORDERED to respond to Plaintiff's aforementioned letters and motions by December 14, 2022. In his response, Mr. Douglas s shall address the issues of reparability of his relationship with Plaintiff and whether he is asserting a retaining or charging lien for his work associated with this case. (Responses due by 12/14/2022) (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 12/12/2022) (rro)
December 5, 2022	Filing 740 ORDER denying 737 Motion to Continue; denying 738 Motion re: 737 MOTION to Continue and Adjourn December 6 2022 Due to No Fly Order and Family Medical Emergency., 738 MOTION Terminate Plaintiff's Counsel Joshua Dou glass as Counsel of Record for Cause . Accordingly, Ms. Abraham's December 5, 2022 motions are DENIED. The parties shall be prepared for the one-day bench trial in this case on December 6, 2022. If Ms. Abraham wishes to appear virtua lly rather than in person, instructions to video participants will be sent via email in advance of the trial. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motions at docket entries 737 and 738. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 12/5/2022) (ks)
June 9, 2022	Filing 725 ORDER denying 723 Motion re: 723 MOTION Plaintiff's Request to Update California Judge re: Conflict and Request for STAY of California 'Tag Team' Proceedings. Application DENIED. As a courtesy to Judge Sepe- Wies enfeld, the Court has informed her that trial in this matter has been adjourned to July 25, 2022, and transmitted to her a copy of the new trial scheduling Order. The Court will not, however, request a stay of the matter pending before Judge Sepe-Wiesenfeld. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 723. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 6/9/2022) (rro)
June 8, 2022	Filing 722 ORDER denying 716 Motion to Disqualify. Finally, Ms. Abraham has moved for leave to offer her own expert witness at trial. (Dkt. #716, 721). This application is denied. Expert discovery on Defendant's counterclaim closed more than two years ago, on October 16, 2019, and the Court previously denied Ms. Abraham's request to extend this deadline. (Dkt. #333). Moreover, while Ms. Abraham is currently proceeding pro se, she was represented by counsel from May 2021 until April 2022. At no time during this representation did Ms. Abraham renew her request to retain an expert witness for trial. Under these circumstances, the Court will not permit Ms. Abraham to introduce an expert on the eve of trial, which would be highly prejudicial to Defendant. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 716. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 6/8/2022) (rro)
June 6, 2022	Filing 717 ORDER: As the Court communicated to the parties via email on June 3, 2022, it recognizes that these late-emerging conflict issues have resulted in the expenditure of valuable time in the leadup to trial. Through no fault of either side, time that the parties otherwise would have spent preparing for trial has necessarily been devoted to dealing with an ethics issue that is ancillary to the merits of the counterclaim that is set to go to trial. Irrespective of the Court's resolution of Ms. Abraham's motion to disqualify, the Court believes that the unique facts and circumstances of this case, as well as considerations of fairness, demand a brief adjournment of the trial in this matter. Accordingly, the bench trial set to b egin on June 7, 2022, is hereby ADJOURNED sine die. The Court expects trial in this matter to go forward in the month of July. The parties are directed to communicate to the Court as soon as possible their availability to begin a bench trial on any of the following dates: July 13, 2022; July 14, 2022; July 15, 2022; July 18, 2022; or July 25, 2022. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 6/6/2022) (rro)
June 1, 2022	Filing 705 ORDER granting 701 Motion to Disqualify. Accordingly, Ms. Abraham's motion to disqualify is GRANTED. This ruling is without prejudice to a further response from Defendant as to any efforts that Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC has put in pl ace to screen Ms. Hyland from any confidential information that was obtained as a result of Ms. Abraham's legal consultation with Mr. Minkoff. If Defendant wishes to make a supplemental filing, he shall do so on or before June 3, 2022, at 12:00 p.m. eastern time. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 701. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 6/1/2022) (rro)
May 31, 2022	Filing 702 ORDER: On May 29, 2022, Ms. Abraham filed a motion to disqualify Nicole Hyland, the expert proffered by Counterclaim Plaintiff to replace Mr. Lawrence Fox, who is medically unable to participate at trial. (Dkt. #701). Counterclaim Plaintiff is directed to file a response to Ms. Abraham's motion to disqualify by end of day on June 1, 2022. (Responses due by 6/1/2022) (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 5/31/2022) (rro)
May 20, 2022	Filing 693 ORDER: The Court DENIES Ms. Abraham's request to seal docket entry 692. There is no indication that mere reference to these California cases would affect, in any way, the resolution of the instant matter, nor is there any evidence in the recor d to support Ms. Abraham's claim of "retaliation and potential physical harm." Ms. Abraham, herself, filed information related to these cases on the public docket. (See Dkt. #687). Indeed, the Court used the information furnished by Ms . Abraham to locate the cases to which she was referring in her motion for sanctions. In these circumstances, the Court sees no occasion to seal citation-related information concerning public judicial proceedings. See generally Hartford Courant C o. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83, 90-96 (2d Cir. 2004) (discussing First Amendment right of access to judicial documents); Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006) (same). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 5/20/2022) (ks)
April 27, 2022	Filing 679 ORDER FOR APPEARANCE OF PRO BONO COUNSEL: For the foregoing reasons, the Clerk of Court is directed to attempt to locate pro bono counsel to represent Plaintiff for the purpose of trying the remaining counterclaim in this case. The Court advises P laintiff that there are no funds to retain counsel in civil cases and the Court relies on volunteers. Due to a scarcity of volunteer attorneys, a lengthy period of time may pass before counsel volunteers to represent Plaintiff. Nevertheless, this litigation will progress at a normal pace. If an attorney volunteers, the attorney will contact Plaintiff directly. There is no guarantee, however, that a volunteer attorney will decide to take the case, and plaintiff should be prepared to proceed with the case pro se. The Court has established a Pro Bono Fund to encourage greater attorney representation of pro se litigants. The Fund is especially intended for attorneys for whom pro bono service is a financial hardship. See http://www.nysd .circ2.dcn/docs/prose /pro_bono_fund_order. pdf. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 4/27/2022) (rro)
April 18, 2022	Filing 677 ORDER granting 675 Motion re: 675 MOTION to Continue and Reschedule Ex Parte scheduled April 15 2022 Order Scheduled Telephone Hearing for April 19 2022 on Sobel Motion to Withdraw . With that said, the Court understands that P laintiff is unable to attend the conference scheduled for April 19, 2022. As such, this conference is hereby ADJOURNED sine die. In arriving at a mutually agreeable time for this conference, the Court is willing to rearrange its calendar on the afte rnoon of April 25, 2022. Accordingly, Plaintiff, Plaintiff's counsel, and Defense counsel are ORDERED to immediately advise the Court of their availability on the afternoon of April 25, 2022 by email sent to the chambers inbox (Failla_NYSDCha mbers@nysd.uscourts.gov). Apart from the scheduling email just described, Plaintiff shall not direct any further correspondence to the Court, in circumvention of her existing attorney-client relationship. The Court wishes to underscore that this adjournment in no way seeks to minimize the urgency of Plaintiff's counsel's motion to withdraw, in light of the upcoming trial date in this matter. Plaintiff's counsel has presented serious allegations in support of his motion. Plaintiff would be well-advised to continue her search for replacement counsel in the interim. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 675. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 4/18/2022) (rro)
May 24, 2021	Filing 644 ORDER: Accordingly, Mr. Sobel must obtain a certificate of good standing from a court of the State of California, such as the Supreme Court of the State of California, within 45 days from the date of this Order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 5/24/2021) (rro)
April 6, 2021	Filing 633 ORDER: By email dated April 6, 2021, the parties informed the Court that Plaintiff is trying to secure counsel to represent her in this case, and will know on or by May 1, 2021. Accordingly, the parties are hereby ORDERED to file a joint status update with the Court on or by May 3, 2021. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 4/6/2021) (nb)
February 11, 2021	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)
January 27, 2021	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)
December 21, 2020	Filing 615 ORDER: Accordingly, Plaintiff may submit, on or by January 22, 2021, an ex parte, sealed submission to substantiate her poverty and her diligence in attempting to comply with the Sanctions Order between September 14, 2020, and the present. The Court will hold its decision on Defendant's pending motion for a finding of civil contempt in abeyance pending a supplemental submission from Plaintiff to demonstrate her diligence in attempting to comply with the Sanctions Order. Additionally, Plaintiff is warned one final time that continued noncompliance with the Court's October 21, 2020 Order will result in entry of judgment against Plaintiff on Defendant's counterclaims against her. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 12/21/2020) (rro)
November 24, 2020	Filing 613 ORDER: The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's submission in opposition to Defendant's motion for a finding of civil contempt. (Dkt. #610, 611). Defendant's reply in support of her motion for a finding of civil contempt shall be due on or by December 8, 2020. The submission at docket entry 610 is a brief submitted in a completely different and unrelated case by a non-party to this case. It is irrelevant to this case and the instant motion, and the Clerk of Court is therefore d irected to strike the filing at docket entry 610. Additionally, Plaintiff's submission is filled with sensitive personal information about her former counsel and therefore should be sealed. Plaintiff failed to seek leave of court before filin g this submission, which contains irrelevant personal attacks against her former counsel, and she is therefore once again in violation of the Court's October 21, 2020 Order. (See Dkt. #583). The Court would be well within its rights to impose sanctions, including civil and criminal contempt, monetary sanctions, and default in the underlying action, for Plaintiff's repeated violations of the October 21, 2020 Order (see, e.g., Dkt. #587), and Plaintiff's bold disregard for the Court's prior warnings regarding her previous violations of the same Court order (see, e.g., Dkt. #589). The Court once again Court warns Plaintiff that future violations of the October 21, 2020 Order will not be tolerated and are increasingl y likely to lead to sanctions. For the reasons discussed above, the Clerk of Court is directed to strike docket entry 610, and to seal docket entry 611, to be viewable only by the Court and parties. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 11/24/2020) (rro)
November 16, 2020	Filing 602 ORDER denying without prejudice 593 Letter Motion to Compel. After reviewing the docket, it is the Court's view that Plaintiff's amended notices of appeal (see Dkt. #591, 594-95), have not cured her untimely attempt to appeal the Court 's September 14, 2020 Opinion and Order (see Dkt. #539). The Court understands further that Plaintiff's recent conversations with the Clerk of Court (see Dkt. #596), pertain to the mechanics of how notices of appeal are filed and transmitte d to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, but not to the issue of timeliness vel non of individual orders that she seeks to appeal.The Court is also aware that Plaintiff has filed a motion at the Second Circuit to amend her noti ce of appeal to account for clerical error. This Court will not opine on the merits of a motion pending before another court, but calls to Plaintiff's attention Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)-(5). Thus, to the Court's knowledge , there is no proper appeal of the Court's September 14, 2020 Opinion and Order currently pending before the Second Circuit. Plaintiff's response to Defendant's pending motion for civil contempt (see Dkt. #573), shall therefore be due on or before November 23, 2020. The Court is also in receipt of Ms. Kerwick's letters dated November 12,2020, and November 16, 2020, regarding Plaintiff's filings at the SecondCircuit. (Dkt. #593, 601). The Court reiterates that the most se nsitive materialthat Plaintiff has filed regarding Ms. Kerwick, Ms. Wiss, Wiss & Partners,and/or Plaintiff's relationship with them, would be irrelevant to any of herclaims on appeal. (See Dkt. #583). However, the Court does not believe thatits October 21, 2020 Order controls Plaintiff's filings before another court (seeid.), and therefore Ms. Kerwick's motion to compel compliance with that Orderis denied without prejudice. That said, nothing prevents the Leigh Defendants'cou nsel from advising the Second Circuit of this procedural history andendeavoring to keep sealed at the Court of Appeals what this Court has strivento keep sealed at the District Court.The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at docket entry593. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 11/16/2020) (rro)
November 9, 2020	Filing 589 ORDER denying 587 Motion to Stay.The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's motion to stay the case pending appeal (Dkt. #587), and Ms. Kerwick's November 6, 2020 letter (Dkt. #588). Plaintiff's appeal does not divest the Court of jur isdiction to consider Defendant's pending motion for contempt or Defendant's counterclaims, and therefore Plaintiff's motion for a stay is DENIED.However, on this record, the Court cannot tell if it would be appropriate for Plaintiff t o seek a stay of her obligation to comply with the Court's September 14, 2020 Opinion and Order (see Dkt. #539), pending the outcome of her appeal of that Opinion and Order (see Dkt. #546). Should Plaintiff seek to raise this issue with the Cour t, the Court will entertain a letter from Plaintiff on this matter. In the interim, Plaintiff's opposition to Defendant's motion for contempt is still due on or by November 16, 2020. (See Dkt. #586).Finally, the Court reminds Plaintiff that she must comply with the Court's October 21, 2020 Order (Dkt. #583), which Order stated that "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." (Id. (emphases added)). Plaintiff's filing at docket entry 587 is in clearviolation of this Order. Plaintiff is hereby warned that future noncompliancewith the October 21, 2020 Order will require the Court to c onsider sanctions"including civil and criminal contempt, monetary sanctions, and default in theunderlying action." (Id.).Therefore, the Clerk of Court is directed to seal docket entry 587, to beviewable by the Court and parties only.SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 11/9/2020) (rro)
October 30, 2020	Filing 586 ORDER: On October 15, 2020, Defendant filed a motion seeking an order finding Plaintiff in civil contempt for her alleged failure to comply with the Court's Opinion and Order dated September 14, 2020. (See Dkt. #573-575). Pursuant to Local Rule 6.1, Plaintiff was to file her opposition papers on or by October 29, 2020. Plaintiff is hereby directed to file her response, if any, to Defendant's motion on or by November 16, 2020. Should Plaintiff fail to file a response by November 16, 2020, the Court shall consider Defendant's motion for civil contempt to be unopposed and will consider the full range of sanctions available to it, including monetary sanctions and default in the underlying action. If Plaintiff does file a response, she is reminded that any filings shall comply with the Court's Order dated October 21, 2020. (See Dkt. #583).SO ORDERED., Motions due by 11/16/2020. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 10/30/2020) (rj)
October 26, 2020	Filing 585 ORDER granting 584 Letter Motion to Seal. Due to the sensitive nature of the information contained therein, the Clerk of Court is directed to seal docket entries 579 and 581, to be viewable only to the Court and the parties. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 10/26/2020) (rro)
October 21, 2020	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)
October 19, 2020	Filing 582 ORDER: Approximately 30 minutes prior to a scheduled hearing in the case, Plaintiff Robyn Abraham filed a motion to stay the hearing. (Dkt. #581). The Court does not believe that it has been divested of jurisdiction to consider the issues raised by former counsel's submissions to the Court, and it will not therefore stay the conference. Application denied. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 10/19/2020) (rro)
October 14, 2020	Filing 572 ORDER granting 570 Letter Motion to Seal. The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff Robyn Abraham's second motion for recusal. (Dkt. #558-563). Having reviewed Plaintiff's motion papers, it does not appear that Plaintiff advances any argument s premised on occurrences that postdate the events already addressed in the Court's August 28, 2020 Order denying Plaintiff's first motion for recusal. See Abraham v. Leigh, No. 17 Civ. 5429 (KPF), 2020 WL 5095655 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2020). More fundamentally, for the reasons already discussed at great length in several prior orders, the allegations that Plaintiff reiterates in support of the instant motion are almost entirely factually inaccurate. See e.g., Abraham v. Leigh, No. 17 Civ . 5429 (KPF), 2020 WL 5512718 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 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). And those allegation s that do not misperceive or misstate the facts, such as references to the Court's decisions adverse to Plaintiff, are insufficient grounds for recusal. See Bishop v. United States, No. 04 Civ. 3633(CSH), 2004 WL 1497690, at 1 (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2004) ("Rulings adverse to aparty are not regarded in and of themselves as evidence of such bias orprejudice as would require recusal."). Therefore, for the reasons alreadydiscussed in the Court's August 28, 2020 Order, see 2020 WL 50 95655, at11-12, Plaintiff's second motion for recusal is DENIED.Additionally, the Court notes that Plaintiff continues to put irrelevantand sensitive personal information about Plaintiff's former counsel on thepublic docket. Therefore, the Clerk of Court is directed to seal docket entries559-563, to be viewable by the Court and parties only.SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 10/14/2020) (rro)
October 1, 2020	Filing 554 ORDER: Plaintiff focuses entirely on reconsideration of the Court's October 22,2019 decision imposing sanctions on Plaintiff, and does not offer anyindependent basis for reconsideration of the Court's September 14, 2020Opinion and Order i mposing attorneys' fees and costs on her. (See generallyPl. Br.; Pl. Decl.). Because, as explained above, the Court declines toreconsider its October 22, 2019 decision to sanction Plaintiff, and becausePlaintiff has offered no additional reason for reconsideration of the fees andcosts imposed in the Court's September 14, 2020 Opinion and Order, Plaintiff'smotion for reconsideration of the September 14, 2020 Opinion and Order isalso denied and further set forth in this Order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 10/1/2020) (rro)
September 14, 2020	Filing 539 OPINION AND ORDER re: 400 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document 395 Letter, 399 Letter, 398 Letter, 397 Letter, 396 Letter addressed to Judge Katherine Polk Failla from Colleen Ni Chairmhaic, former counsel for Plaintiff d ated 11/6/2019. filed by Colleen M Ni Chairmhaic, 407 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Abby Leigh. For the reasons set forth in this Opinion and Order, the Court sanctions Plaintiff and awards to Defendant Leigh attorneys' fees in the amount of $52,507.50 and costs in the amount of $637.10. Plaintiff is directed to pay this sanction to Defendant Leigh, in care of her attorneys, within 30 days of the date of this Opinion and Order. The Clerk of Court is directed t o terminate the motion at docket entry 407. In addition, the Court observes that an open motion at docket entry 400 was previously resolved, and it thus directs the Clerk of Court to terminate that motion as well. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 9/14/2020) (rro)
August 28, 2020	Filing 538 OPINION AND ORDER re: 506 MOTION to Unseal Case Documents and Reinstate Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. filed by Robyn Abraham. For the reasons set forth in the remainder of this Opinion, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED; Plaintiff's motion to unseal is DENIED; and Plaintiff's motion for recusal is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 506. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 9/28/2020) (rro)
August 17, 2020	Filing 537 ORDER: The Court has reviewed its scheduling Order dated July 24, 2020 (Dkt. #515), and recognizes that it permitted Plaintiff to file a response in support of her motions for reconsideration on or by August 14, 2020. The Court therefore accepts Pl aintiff's reply dated August 14, 2020 (Dkt. #535), and withdraws its incorrect prior Order dated August 17, 2020, rejecting Plaintiff's reply (Dkt. #536), with apologies to the parties for any inconvenience or confusion caused by the Order docketed at No. 536. For the sake of clarity, the Court will consider Plaintiff's reply brief (Dkt. #535), in deciding Plaintiff's motions for reconsideration and disqualification of the Court. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 8/17/2020) (rro)
August 5, 2020	Filing 533 ORDER: The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's documents, filed on August 4, 2020, styled on ECF as "Notice of Filing Supplement to Plaintiff's Motions" (Dkt. #526),"Brief" (Dkt. #527), and "Notice of Plaintiff 9;s Supplemental Exhibits" (Dkt. #529-#532). As an initial matter, the Court notes that most of these documents are misfiled. (E.g., Dkt. #527 (document filed as a "Brief" is not a brief at all, but is in fact a collection of PDFs of s everal documents styled as exhibits, two of which are labelled Exhibit A and one labelled Exhibit B)). Additionally, Plaintiff has already filed most, if not all, of these "exhibits" along with her earlier motions. They are therefore unne cessary to supplement Plaintiff's pending motions. Furthermore, the Court is concerned that Plaintiff is attempting to file motions by accretion, with voluminous, duplicative, supplemental filings, thereby abusing ECF and wasting judicial resour ces. For these reasons, the Court will accept Plaintiff's latest filings (Dkt. #526532), but nothing more until Plaintiff's pending motions are resolved. The Court reminds Plaintiff of the Order issued just two days ago, on August 3, 2020 , imploring her to think about her filings and to refrain from wasting the time and resources of the Court and parties. If Plaintiff is unwilling or unable to comply with Court orders, the Court is willing for the first time to suspend Plaintiff&# 039;s ECF filing privileges. Finally, because many of the documents Plaintiff filed on August 4, 2020, disclose irrelevant, salacious, or personally sensitive material, the Court will seal Docket Nos. 527-532, to be viewable by the Court and parties only. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 8/5/2020) (rro)
July 8, 2020	Filing 505 OPINION AND ORDER re: 429 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Abby Leigh. For the reasons set forth above, Defendant's motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff's breach of contract claim is GRANTED. Defendant's mot ion for summary judgment in favor of her own counterclaim for breach of a fiduciary duty is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 429. Defendant is hereby ORDERED to file a letter proposing next steps concerning her counterclaim on or before July 29, 2020. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 7/8/2020) (rro)
April 6, 2020	Filing 498 ORDER: For these reasons, each of Plaintiff's three requests is DENIED. Given the number and the tenor of Plaintiff's submissions in recent weeks and their diminishing fidelity to the record in this case the Court is convinced that mo re drastic steps are necessary to prevent Plaintiff from clogging the Court's docket with irrelevant, if not false, information and unduly burdening Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff is precluded from filing further submissions of any type u ntil the earlier of a further order of the Court in this regard, or the Court's resolution of Defendants' pending motion for summary judgment. The Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to strike docket entries 481 through 489, which entries P laintiff filed as her papers in opposition to Defendants' pending motion for summary judgment. The Court will instead docket the materials that Plaintiff submitted to the Court via email on March 11, 2020, thus ensuring adherence to its March 2 7, 2020 Order. (Dkt. #492). Finally, the Court is in receipt of Defendants' request that the Court shorten the 21-day safe harbor under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, within which Plaintiff might withdraw her motion to reopen discovery. (Dkt. #490). Such application is DENIED at this time. The Court believes the solution it has outlined in this Order to be sufficient. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 4/3/2020) (rro)
March 30, 2020	Filing 492 ORDER: Plaintiff's application is DENIED. Plaintiff's March 11, 2020 submissions in opposition to the pending motion for summary judgment do not make reference to any documents that Plaintiff had intended to file but was unable to do so d ue to file size limitations. Indeed, these March 11, 2020 submissions make reference only to the opposition brief, Rule 56.1 counterstatement, and Exhibits A through J. The Court is forced to conclude that Plaintiff is seeking to file a sur-reply in opposition to Defendants' reply papers. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that she is entitled to such do so. Accordingly, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to file on the public docket as her submissions in opposition to the pending motion for summary j udgment only those documents that she emailed to the Court and Leigh Defendants on March 11, 2020. The Court will review these filings to ensure that they do not differ in any respect from those received on March 11, 2020. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 3/27/2020) (rro)
March 26, 2020	Filing 476 ORDER granting 473 Letter Motion to Seal. Application GRANTED. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 3/25/2020) (rro)
March 18, 2020	Filing 471 ORDER: On June 10, 2019, the Court entered an Order, setting a deadline of November 15, 2019, for the filing of pre-motion letters concerning contemplated summary judgment motions. (Dkt. #230). Plaintiff requested leave to file a motion for summary judgment for the first time on February 25, 2020. (Dkt. #450). On February 27, 2020, the Court entered an Order requiring Plaintiff to file a letter on or before March 6, 2020, demonstrating good cause as to why she failed to file a pre-motion submission by the November 15, 2019 deadline. (Dkt. #455). The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's March 6, 2020 letter seeking leave to file a motion for summary judgment and attempting to demonstrate good cause as to why sh e did not comply with the Court's June 10, 2019 Order. (Dkt. #459). The Court is also in receipt of the Leigh Defendants' March 12, 2020 Letter in opposition to Plaintiff's request. (Dkt. #463, 464). Plaintiff's ap plication to file an untimely motion for summary judgment is hereby DENIED. Plaintiff has failed to establish good cause for her failure to abide by the Court's June 10, 2019 Order, which gave the parties five months in which to make pre- motion submissions for anticipated motions for summary judgment. Nor has Plaintiff established that her failure to do so was the result of excusable negligence. Further, upon review of Defendants' motion for summary judgment pape rs, Plaintiff's opposition papers, and the exhibits that Plaintiff has submitted to the Court to demonstrate the likelihood of success of her anticipated motion for summary judgment, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's motion for summ ary judgment, were it to be filed, would not have a reasonable likelihood of success. Thus, it would be a waste of the parties' and the Court's resources to allow Plaintiff to file an untimely motion for summary judgment. In so deciding, the Court does not express any opinion as to the likelihood of success of Defendants' motion for summary judgment, which has not yet been fully briefed. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 3/18/2020) (mro)
February 27, 2020	Filing 455 ORDER. If Plaintiff wishes to file a summary judgment motion, she is ORDERED to file a letter on or before March 6, 2020, demonstrating good cause as to why she failed to file a pre-motion submission by the November 15, 2019 deadline. (Dkt. #230). This letter is not to exceed three pages in length. Defendants shall file their reply, if any, on or before March 13, 2020. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 2/27/2020) (rjm)
February 12, 2020	Filing 443 ORDER: The Court has received notice that Plaintiff has paid the outstanding invoices owed to Hudson Reporting. Accordingly, the Order to Show Cause hearing currently scheduled for February 14, 2020, is hereby ADJOURNED sine die. SO ORDERED. *Hearings Terminated* The following hearing(s) was terminated: Show Cause Hearing. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 2/11/2020) (jca)
January 27, 2020	Filing 438 ORDER granting 436 Motion to Seal Document. Application GRANTED. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 1/24/2020) (rro) Transmission to Sealed Records Clerk for processing.
December 11, 2019	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)
December 10, 2019	Filing 417 ORDER granting 416 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document in Response to Plaintiff's sealed December 8, 2019. Application GRANTED. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 12/9/2019) (jca)
September 9, 2019	Filing 319 OPINION AND ORDER re: 101 MOTION to Dismiss Defendant Abby Leigh's Counterclaim filed by Robyn Abraham. Given the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion to dismiss Defendant Leigh's Amended Counterclaims is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 101. The parties are hereby ORDERED to provide a joint letter regarding the status of outstanding discovery concerning the counterclaims on or before September 26, 2019. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 9/9/2019) (rro)
July 30, 2018	Filing 83 ORDER denying 67 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 69 Motion for Reconsideration. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants Honig's and Wasserman'smotions for reconsideration are DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed toterminate the motions at Docket Entries 67 and 69. The Court will considerseparately the proposed Case Management Plan submitted by the parties.SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 7/30/2018) (rro)

November 7, 2023

Filing 804 ORDER denying 802 Motion to Vacate 802 EMERGENCY MOTION to Vacate 801 Clerk's Judgment,,, 800 Order,,, . Application DENIED. Counterclaim Defendant does not cite any authority supporting her self-styled "Emergen cy Motion to Vacate." Nor does Counterclaim Defendant demonstrate any entitlement to relief under any of the potentially applicable provisions of Federal or Local Rules, as discussed below. First, Counterclaim Defendant has not timely filed a n otice of motion for reconsideration pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.3, which Rule requires such notice be served "within fourteen (14) days after the entry of the judgment." Judgment in this case was entered by the Clerk on October 16, 2023, such that Counterclaim Defendant's deadline was October 30, 2023. Next, Counterclaim Defendant is not entitled to any alteration or amendment of the Court's judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). To prevail on a motion pursu ant to Rule 59(e), a party must demonstrate that the Court overlooked "controlling law or factual matters" that had previously been put before it. R.F.M.A.S., Inc. v. Mimi So, 640 F. Supp. 2d 506, 508-09 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). Such motions must b e narrowly construed and strictly applied in order to discourage litigants from making repetitive arguments on issues that have been thoroughly considered by the court. Range Road Music, Inc. v. Music Sales Corp., 90 F. Supp. 2d 390, 391-92 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). Far from having overlooked the factual matters of Counterclaim Defendant's case, the Court has spent an exorbitant amount of time reviewing Counterclaim Defendant's irrelevant and fabricated documents, and addressing Countercla im Defendant's bad faith submissions and baseless arguments, all in an attempt to resolve this six-year-old case. As detailed extensively in this Court's October 16, 2023 Order, Counterclaim Defendant has provided no basis for the Cou rt to believe that Counterclaim Defendant possesses any of the above- referenced medical records, despite the Court having afforded her ample time to obtain and produce them. (Dkt. #800 ("Oct. 16, 2023 Order") at 5-7, 11-13). Even in the above motion, Counterclaim Defendant does not actually represent that she is now in possession of these illusory medical records. Rather, Counterclaim Defendant simply suggests that the records were not available during the window in which Co unterclaim Defendant had to respond to the Order to Show Cause, as the tests results had not yet been returned. This is now the third conflicting explanation provided by Counterclaim Defendant for why she has not been able to obtain these record s. Recall that first, Counterclaim Defendant explained that she could not obtain her own records due to them having been protected under California and Federal law, an explanation that was demonstrably false. (See Oct. 16, 2023 Order 11-12). Next, Counterclaim Defendant represented that there were no additional records to produce, which representation Counterclaim Defendant contradicted in her subsequent emergency motion to disqualify. (See id. at 7-8 (citing Dkt. #799 at 1-2)). Counterclaim Defendant can do no better in her third version of events, which ultimately returns to the same repetitive arguments on issues that have been exhaustively considered by this Court. As such, Countercla Defendant has not established any claim for relief under Rule 59(e). By the same token, Counterclaim Defendant is not entitled to relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2), which Rule concerns "newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could n ot have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b)." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2). For one, Counterclaim Defendant has yet to demonstrate that any newly discovered evidence actually exists, making any such Rule 60(b)(2) applica tion a nonstarter. Moreover, Counterclaim Defendant's conduct in this case is hardly a study in reasonable diligence. Rather, and for over two years, Counterclaim Defendant endeavored to delay the one-day bench trial of the last remaining counte rclaim in this case, culminating in the events detailed in the Court's May 2, 2023 Order to Show Cause (Dkt. #760) and subsequent October 16, 2023 Order (Dkt. #800). Along the way, Counterclaim Defendant has resorted to the fabrication of docume nts and making of false statements, both of which actions militate strongly against providing Counterclaim Defendant with any relief from the Court's entry of default judgment. (See Oct. 16, 2023 Order 8, 15 n.5, 18-20). Therefore, to the extent that Counterclaim Defendant seeks relief under Rule 60(b)(2), such relief is also denied. The sideshow that has been Counterclaim Defendant's bad faith conduct in thismatter must at some point come to a close. The only remaining submission soug ht from Counterclaim Defendant is an opposition to the fee petition filed by Counterclaim Plaintiff. (See Dkt. #803). Counterclaim Defendant shall file that opposition on or before November 27, 2023. If Counterclaim Defendant files any other document s that are frivolous or meritless, the Court may direct Counterclaim Defendant to show cause why she should not be barred from filing further documents in this action. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this or der would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motion at docket number 802. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 11/7/2023) (rro)

October 16, 2023

Filing 801 CLERK'S JUDGMENT re: 800 Order in favor of Abby Leigh against Robyn Abraham. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that for the reasons stated in the Court's Order dated October 16, 2023, the Court finds that Counterclaim Plaintiff is entitled to a default judgment on her counterclaim and to the recovery of fees. Judgment is entered on the counterclaim in favor of Counterclaim Plaintiff and the case is closed. Counterclaim Plaintiff is directed to submit an opening submission on her fee petition on or before November 6, 2023. Counterclaim Defendant may then submit an opposition submission to the fee petition on or before November 27, 2023. The Court will advise the parties if it believes a reply submission is warranted. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 10/16/2023) (Attachments: # 1 Appeal Package) (tp)

August 1, 2023

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)

July 21, 2023

Filing 795 MEMO ENDORSEMENT denying 794 Motion re: 794 MOTION To File Additional Exhibits with Sur Reply by July 28 2023 . ENDORSEMENT: Application DENIED. The bench trial that is the issue of thisorder to show cause and Counter-Claim Def endant's responses wasthree months ago, and Counter-Claim Defendant has had ampleopportunity to submit evidence to this Court. Counter-ClaimDefendant is clearly aware of the Court's June 29, 2023 Order(Dkt. #793) directing the filing of a s hort reply by July 21,2023, as it is cited in her above motion. Counter-ClaimDefendant has had three weeks to prepare a reply with fullunderstanding of the Court's indication that it will not extendthis deadline. This last-minute request, filed on the eve ofthat July 21, 2023 deadline, offers no real justification for anextension, and is therefore denied.Consistent with the Court's prior Order at docket number 793,Counter-Claim Defendant may submit a reply by the end of the daytoday, J uly 21, 2023. As ordered, the Court will not considerany additional exhibits, nor any submission longer than tenpages. Should Counter-Claim Defendant fail to submit a timelyresponse, the Court will consider the issue fully briefed.The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motionat docket number 794.. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 7/21/2023) (rro)

June 29, 2023

Filing 793 ORDER: On June 29, 2023, Counter-Claim Plaintiff submitted a response to Counter-Claim Defendant's submission related to the Court's order to show cause. (Dkt. #791-792). Counter-Claim Defendant may submit a reply, not to exceed ten (10) p ages in length, by July 21, 2023. The Court will not consider any submission longer than ten pages, and will not consider additional exhibits. The Court will not extend this deadline; if Counter-Claim Defendant fails to submit a response by July 21, 2023, the Court will consider the issue fully briefed. ( Replies due by 7/21/2023.) (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 6/29/2023) (rro)

June 23, 2023

Filing 790 ORDER: The Court is in receipt of Counter-claim Defendant's response to the Court's order to show Cause (Dkt. #779), as well as a number of supporting exhibits (Dkt. #780-789). Counter-claim Plaintiff may file a response to this submission by July 10, 2023. This response shall not exceed 10 pages in length double-spaced. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 6/23/2023) (ks)

May 19, 2023

Filing 776 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on Plaintiff/Counter-Defendants's Motion for New Jury Trial Dates Following Plaintiff's May 2, 2023 Beverly Hills Cedars Sinai Hospitalization: denying 775 Motion re: 775 MOTION New Jury Trial Dates Following Pla intiff's May 2, 2023 Hospitalization. ENDORSEMENT: Application DENIED. The Court will not address the majority of the factual allegations in Ms. Abraham's above motion. (See Dkt. #774). The Court has not set a new trial date in this case be cause Ms. Abraham is presently required to respond to the Court's order to show cause by May 23, 2023. (Dkt. #760). To the extent Plaintiff seeks a jury trial on the only remaining counterclaim, the Court has already denied Plaintiff's requ est to this effect two years ago and held that the counterclaim would be heard through a bench trial. (Dkt. #657 (July 12, 2021 Order)). This Order does not affect Ms. Abraham's obligation to respond to the order to show cause by May 23, 2023. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 775. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 5/19/2023) (ama)

May 16, 2023

Filing 774 ORDER denying 761 Motion to Disqualify Judge; denying 762 Motion to Disqualify Judge. The Court is in receipt of Ms. Abraham's motion to disqualify the Court from this case (Dkt. #761-762), as well as a number of attached exhibits. It i s difficult for the Court to engage with this most recent filing, which is once again filled with misstatements of the record in this case and patently false allegations. What is more, Plaintiff's motion accuses the Court of meddling in an u nrelated Florida proceeding of which this Court was not aware, presided over by a judge this Court does not know and has never contacted, concerning Ms. Abraham's mother's care. The Court is of course saddened by Ms. Abraham's mothe r's passing, and hopes that Ms. Abraham and her family can find solace in this difficult period. But accusing the Court of engaging in "ex parte discussions" with the judge presiding over the Florida case, "result[ing] in Joyc e Abraham's untimely recent death", is both false and disparaging. The Court DENIES Ms. Abraham's motion. This Order does not affect any other deadlines in this case, and the Court expects that Ms. Abraham will respond to its Order to Show Cause by May 23, 2023. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motions at docket entries 761 and 762. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 5/16/2023) (vfr)

December 23, 2022

Filing 755 ORDER: Since the Courts adjournment of the one-day bench trial in this case nearly three weeks ago, the Court has attempted to work with the parties to reschedule the trial to a date convenient for the parties and the Court. However, due to my riad scheduling conflicts, those efforts have failed. As such, the Court has no choice but to set a trial date itself, and expects the parties to set their schedules accordingly. The bench trial in this case shall commence on May 2, 2023, at 9:00 a .m., in Courtroom 618 of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York. The Court anticipates the trial day to run from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. This trial date more than four months from now provides Plaintiff adequate tim e to retain new counsel if she so chooses, and also provides Defendant time to work out any witness scheduling issues. The Court does not anticipate adjusting this trial date. (Bench Trial set for 5/2/2023 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 618, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Katherine Polk Failla.) (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 12/23/2022) (rro)

December 19, 2022

Filing 754 ORDER: In light of Mr. Douglass's response, the Court grants Plaintiff's request to terminate Mr. Douglass as her counsel of record. In Plaintiff's third declaration in support of termination of Joshua Douglass as counsel of record, Plaintiff seeks an order from the Court (i) terminating Mr. Douglass from this case; (ii) compelling Mr. Douglass to repay Plaintiff's retainer; and (iii) granting Plaintiff a reasonable adjournment of the trial in this case to retain substitu te counsel. (Dkt. #744 at 3). The Court will not order Mr. Douglass to repay Plaintiff's retainer in this case, as this matter is a private dispute beyond this Court's involvement in the instant case. Moreover, as noted in Mr. Douglass 9;s ex parte submission, there are other outstanding fee-related issues between Mr. Douglass and Plaintiff in other cases. The Court will separately work with the parties to schedule a trial date that is convenient for the parties and the Court's schedule. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Joshua Douglass from the docket in this case. Attorney Joshua Alan Douglass terminated. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 12/19/2022) (rro)

December 15, 2022

Filing 745 ORDER: On December 12, 2022, the Court ordered Joshua Douglass to respond to Plaintiff's letters and motions about his representation in this case by December 14, 2022. (Dkt. #743 (December 12, 2022 Order); Dkt. #735, 737-738, 742 (Plaintiff& #039;s letters and motions pertaining to Mr. Douglass)). Since the December 12, 2022 Order, Plaintiff has filed another submission in support of terminating Mr. Douglass as counsel of record. (Dkt. #744). Mr. Douglass has failed to submit a respon se in line with the Court's December 12, 2022 Order. Accordingly, Mr. Douglass is hereby ORDERED to respond to Plaintiff's representations, and address the issues of reparability of his relationship with Plaintiff and whether he is asser ting a retaining or charging lien for his work associated with this case. Mr. Douglass shall submit his response by December 16, 2022, and shall file his submission on an ex parte basis, viewable only to Plaintiff and this Court. If Mr. Douglass fails to respond, he may be found in contempt for repeatedly violating this Court's Orders. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 12/15/2022) (rro)

December 12, 2022

Filing 743 ORDER: On December 2, 2022, Plaintiff submitted a letter to the Court, requesting that the Court terminate Joshua Douglass as counsel of record in this case. (Dkt. #735). That letter indicates that Mr. Douglass has refused to communicate with Plai ntiff about this case, and that he has threatened Plaintiff. (Id.). Plaintiff made similar representations in two motions she filed with the Court on December 5, 2022. (Dkt. #737-738). Finally, on December 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed a supplemental mo tion to terminate Mr. Douglass as counsel of record. (Dkt. #742). Accordingly, in line with Local Rule 1.4, Mr. Douglass is ORDERED to respond to Plaintiff's aforementioned letters and motions by December 14, 2022. In his response, Mr. Douglas s shall address the issues of reparability of his relationship with Plaintiff and whether he is asserting a retaining or charging lien for his work associated with this case. (Responses due by 12/14/2022) (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 12/12/2022) (rro)

December 5, 2022

Filing 740 ORDER denying 737 Motion to Continue; denying 738 Motion re: 737 MOTION to Continue and Adjourn December 6 2022 Due to No Fly Order and Family Medical Emergency., 738 MOTION Terminate Plaintiff's Counsel Joshua Dou glass as Counsel of Record for Cause . Accordingly, Ms. Abraham's December 5, 2022 motions are DENIED. The parties shall be prepared for the one-day bench trial in this case on December 6, 2022. If Ms. Abraham wishes to appear virtua lly rather than in person, instructions to video participants will be sent via email in advance of the trial. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motions at docket entries 737 and 738. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 12/5/2022) (ks)

June 9, 2022

Filing 725 ORDER denying 723 Motion re: 723 MOTION Plaintiff's Request to Update California Judge re: Conflict and Request for STAY of California 'Tag Team' Proceedings. Application DENIED. As a courtesy to Judge Sepe- Wies enfeld, the Court has informed her that trial in this matter has been adjourned to July 25, 2022, and transmitted to her a copy of the new trial scheduling Order. The Court will not, however, request a stay of the matter pending before Judge Sepe-Wiesenfeld. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 723. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 6/9/2022) (rro)

June 8, 2022

Filing 722 ORDER denying 716 Motion to Disqualify. Finally, Ms. Abraham has moved for leave to offer her own expert witness at trial. (Dkt. #716, 721). This application is denied. Expert discovery on Defendant's counterclaim closed more than two years ago, on October 16, 2019, and the Court previously denied Ms. Abraham's request to extend this deadline. (Dkt. #333). Moreover, while Ms. Abraham is currently proceeding pro se, she was represented by counsel from May 2021 until April 2022. At no time during this representation did Ms. Abraham renew her request to retain an expert witness for trial. Under these circumstances, the Court will not permit Ms. Abraham to introduce an expert on the eve of trial, which would be highly prejudicial to Defendant. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 716. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 6/8/2022) (rro)

June 6, 2022

Filing 717 ORDER: As the Court communicated to the parties via email on June 3, 2022, it recognizes that these late-emerging conflict issues have resulted in the expenditure of valuable time in the leadup to trial. Through no fault of either side, time that the parties otherwise would have spent preparing for trial has necessarily been devoted to dealing with an ethics issue that is ancillary to the merits of the counterclaim that is set to go to trial. Irrespective of the Court's resolution of Ms. Abraham's motion to disqualify, the Court believes that the unique facts and circumstances of this case, as well as considerations of fairness, demand a brief adjournment of the trial in this matter. Accordingly, the bench trial set to b egin on June 7, 2022, is hereby ADJOURNED sine die. The Court expects trial in this matter to go forward in the month of July. The parties are directed to communicate to the Court as soon as possible their availability to begin a bench trial on any of the following dates: July 13, 2022; July 14, 2022; July 15, 2022; July 18, 2022; or July 25, 2022. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 6/6/2022) (rro)

June 1, 2022

Filing 705 ORDER granting 701 Motion to Disqualify. Accordingly, Ms. Abraham's motion to disqualify is GRANTED. This ruling is without prejudice to a further response from Defendant as to any efforts that Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC has put in pl ace to screen Ms. Hyland from any confidential information that was obtained as a result of Ms. Abraham's legal consultation with Mr. Minkoff. If Defendant wishes to make a supplemental filing, he shall do so on or before June 3, 2022, at 12:00 p.m. eastern time. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 701. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 6/1/2022) (rro)

May 31, 2022

Filing 702 ORDER: On May 29, 2022, Ms. Abraham filed a motion to disqualify Nicole Hyland, the expert proffered by Counterclaim Plaintiff to replace Mr. Lawrence Fox, who is medically unable to participate at trial. (Dkt. #701). Counterclaim Plaintiff is directed to file a response to Ms. Abraham's motion to disqualify by end of day on June 1, 2022. (Responses due by 6/1/2022) (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 5/31/2022) (rro)

May 20, 2022

Filing 693 ORDER: The Court DENIES Ms. Abraham's request to seal docket entry 692. There is no indication that mere reference to these California cases would affect, in any way, the resolution of the instant matter, nor is there any evidence in the recor d to support Ms. Abraham's claim of "retaliation and potential physical harm." Ms. Abraham, herself, filed information related to these cases on the public docket. (See Dkt. #687). Indeed, the Court used the information furnished by Ms . Abraham to locate the cases to which she was referring in her motion for sanctions. In these circumstances, the Court sees no occasion to seal citation-related information concerning public judicial proceedings. See generally Hartford Courant C o. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83, 90-96 (2d Cir. 2004) (discussing First Amendment right of access to judicial documents); Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006) (same). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 5/20/2022) (ks)

April 27, 2022

Filing 679 ORDER FOR APPEARANCE OF PRO BONO COUNSEL: For the foregoing reasons, the Clerk of Court is directed to attempt to locate pro bono counsel to represent Plaintiff for the purpose of trying the remaining counterclaim in this case. The Court advises P laintiff that there are no funds to retain counsel in civil cases and the Court relies on volunteers. Due to a scarcity of volunteer attorneys, a lengthy period of time may pass before counsel volunteers to represent Plaintiff. Nevertheless, this litigation will progress at a normal pace. If an attorney volunteers, the attorney will contact Plaintiff directly. There is no guarantee, however, that a volunteer attorney will decide to take the case, and plaintiff should be prepared to proceed with the case pro se. The Court has established a Pro Bono Fund to encourage greater attorney representation of pro se litigants. The Fund is especially intended for attorneys for whom pro bono service is a financial hardship. See http://www.nysd .circ2.dcn/docs/prose /pro_bono_fund_order. pdf. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 4/27/2022) (rro)

April 18, 2022

Filing 677 ORDER granting 675 Motion re: 675 MOTION to Continue and Reschedule Ex Parte scheduled April 15 2022 Order Scheduled Telephone Hearing for April 19 2022 on Sobel Motion to Withdraw . With that said, the Court understands that P laintiff is unable to attend the conference scheduled for April 19, 2022. As such, this conference is hereby ADJOURNED sine die. In arriving at a mutually agreeable time for this conference, the Court is willing to rearrange its calendar on the afte rnoon of April 25, 2022. Accordingly, Plaintiff, Plaintiff's counsel, and Defense counsel are ORDERED to immediately advise the Court of their availability on the afternoon of April 25, 2022 by email sent to the chambers inbox (Failla_NYSDCha mbers@nysd.uscourts.gov). Apart from the scheduling email just described, Plaintiff shall not direct any further correspondence to the Court, in circumvention of her existing attorney-client relationship. The Court wishes to underscore that this adjournment in no way seeks to minimize the urgency of Plaintiff's counsel's motion to withdraw, in light of the upcoming trial date in this matter. Plaintiff's counsel has presented serious allegations in support of his motion. Plaintiff would be well-advised to continue her search for replacement counsel in the interim. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 675. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 4/18/2022) (rro)

May 24, 2021

Filing 644 ORDER: Accordingly, Mr. Sobel must obtain a certificate of good standing from a court of the State of California, such as the Supreme Court of the State of California, within 45 days from the date of this Order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 5/24/2021) (rro)

April 6, 2021

Filing 633 ORDER: By email dated April 6, 2021, the parties informed the Court that Plaintiff is trying to secure counsel to represent her in this case, and will know on or by May 1, 2021. Accordingly, the parties are hereby ORDERED to file a joint status update with the Court on or by May 3, 2021. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 4/6/2021) (nb)

February 11, 2021

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)

January 27, 2021

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)

December 21, 2020

Filing 615 ORDER: Accordingly, Plaintiff may submit, on or by January 22, 2021, an ex parte, sealed submission to substantiate her poverty and her diligence in attempting to comply with the Sanctions Order between September 14, 2020, and the present. The Court will hold its decision on Defendant's pending motion for a finding of civil contempt in abeyance pending a supplemental submission from Plaintiff to demonstrate her diligence in attempting to comply with the Sanctions Order. Additionally, Plaintiff is warned one final time that continued noncompliance with the Court's October 21, 2020 Order will result in entry of judgment against Plaintiff on Defendant's counterclaims against her. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 12/21/2020) (rro)

November 24, 2020

Filing 613 ORDER: The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's submission in opposition to Defendant's motion for a finding of civil contempt. (Dkt. #610, 611). Defendant's reply in support of her motion for a finding of civil contempt shall be due on or by December 8, 2020. The submission at docket entry 610 is a brief submitted in a completely different and unrelated case by a non-party to this case. It is irrelevant to this case and the instant motion, and the Clerk of Court is therefore d irected to strike the filing at docket entry 610. Additionally, Plaintiff's submission is filled with sensitive personal information about her former counsel and therefore should be sealed. Plaintiff failed to seek leave of court before filin g this submission, which contains irrelevant personal attacks against her former counsel, and she is therefore once again in violation of the Court's October 21, 2020 Order. (See Dkt. #583). The Court would be well within its rights to impose sanctions, including civil and criminal contempt, monetary sanctions, and default in the underlying action, for Plaintiff's repeated violations of the October 21, 2020 Order (see, e.g., Dkt. #587), and Plaintiff's bold disregard for the Court's prior warnings regarding her previous violations of the same Court order (see, e.g., Dkt. #589). The Court once again Court warns Plaintiff that future violations of the October 21, 2020 Order will not be tolerated and are increasingl y likely to lead to sanctions. For the reasons discussed above, the Clerk of Court is directed to strike docket entry 610, and to seal docket entry 611, to be viewable only by the Court and parties. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 11/24/2020) (rro)

November 16, 2020

Filing 602 ORDER denying without prejudice 593 Letter Motion to Compel. After reviewing the docket, it is the Court's view that Plaintiff's amended notices of appeal (see Dkt. #591, 594-95), have not cured her untimely attempt to appeal the Court 's September 14, 2020 Opinion and Order (see Dkt. #539). The Court understands further that Plaintiff's recent conversations with the Clerk of Court (see Dkt. #596), pertain to the mechanics of how notices of appeal are filed and transmitte d to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, but not to the issue of timeliness vel non of individual orders that she seeks to appeal.The Court is also aware that Plaintiff has filed a motion at the Second Circuit to amend her noti ce of appeal to account for clerical error. This Court will not opine on the merits of a motion pending before another court, but calls to Plaintiff's attention Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)-(5). Thus, to the Court's knowledge , there is no proper appeal of the Court's September 14, 2020 Opinion and Order currently pending before the Second Circuit. Plaintiff's response to Defendant's pending motion for civil contempt (see Dkt. #573), shall therefore be due on or before November 23, 2020. The Court is also in receipt of Ms. Kerwick's letters dated November 12,2020, and November 16, 2020, regarding Plaintiff's filings at the SecondCircuit. (Dkt. #593, 601). The Court reiterates that the most se nsitive materialthat Plaintiff has filed regarding Ms. Kerwick, Ms. Wiss, Wiss & Partners,and/or Plaintiff's relationship with them, would be irrelevant to any of herclaims on appeal. (See Dkt. #583). However, the Court does not believe thatits October 21, 2020 Order controls Plaintiff's filings before another court (seeid.), and therefore Ms. Kerwick's motion to compel compliance with that Orderis denied without prejudice. That said, nothing prevents the Leigh Defendants'cou nsel from advising the Second Circuit of this procedural history andendeavoring to keep sealed at the Court of Appeals what this Court has strivento keep sealed at the District Court.The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at docket entry593. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 11/16/2020) (rro)

November 9, 2020

Filing 589 ORDER denying 587 Motion to Stay.The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's motion to stay the case pending appeal (Dkt. #587), and Ms. Kerwick's November 6, 2020 letter (Dkt. #588). Plaintiff's appeal does not divest the Court of jur isdiction to consider Defendant's pending motion for contempt or Defendant's counterclaims, and therefore Plaintiff's motion for a stay is DENIED.However, on this record, the Court cannot tell if it would be appropriate for Plaintiff t o seek a stay of her obligation to comply with the Court's September 14, 2020 Opinion and Order (see Dkt. #539), pending the outcome of her appeal of that Opinion and Order (see Dkt. #546). Should Plaintiff seek to raise this issue with the Cour t, the Court will entertain a letter from Plaintiff on this matter. In the interim, Plaintiff's opposition to Defendant's motion for contempt is still due on or by November 16, 2020. (See Dkt. #586).Finally, the Court reminds Plaintiff that she must comply with the Court's October 21, 2020 Order (Dkt. #583), which Order stated that "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." (Id. (emphases added)). Plaintiff's filing at docket entry 587 is in clearviolation of this Order. Plaintiff is hereby warned that future noncompliancewith the October 21, 2020 Order will require the Court to c onsider sanctions"including civil and criminal contempt, monetary sanctions, and default in theunderlying action." (Id.).Therefore, the Clerk of Court is directed to seal docket entry 587, to beviewable by the Court and parties only.SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 11/9/2020) (rro)

October 30, 2020

Filing 586 ORDER: On October 15, 2020, Defendant filed a motion seeking an order finding Plaintiff in civil contempt for her alleged failure to comply with the Court's Opinion and Order dated September 14, 2020. (See Dkt. #573-575). Pursuant to Local Rule 6.1, Plaintiff was to file her opposition papers on or by October 29, 2020. Plaintiff is hereby directed to file her response, if any, to Defendant's motion on or by November 16, 2020. Should Plaintiff fail to file a response by November 16, 2020, the Court shall consider Defendant's motion for civil contempt to be unopposed and will consider the full range of sanctions available to it, including monetary sanctions and default in the underlying action. If Plaintiff does file a response, she is reminded that any filings shall comply with the Court's Order dated October 21, 2020. (See Dkt. #583).SO ORDERED., Motions due by 11/16/2020. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 10/30/2020) (rj)

October 26, 2020

Filing 585 ORDER granting 584 Letter Motion to Seal. Due to the sensitive nature of the information contained therein, the Clerk of Court is directed to seal docket entries 579 and 581, to be viewable only to the Court and the parties. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 10/26/2020) (rro)

October 21, 2020

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)

October 19, 2020

Filing 582 ORDER: Approximately 30 minutes prior to a scheduled hearing in the case, Plaintiff Robyn Abraham filed a motion to stay the hearing. (Dkt. #581). The Court does not believe that it has been divested of jurisdiction to consider the issues raised by former counsel's submissions to the Court, and it will not therefore stay the conference. Application denied. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 10/19/2020) (rro)

October 14, 2020

Filing 572 ORDER granting 570 Letter Motion to Seal. The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff Robyn Abraham's second motion for recusal. (Dkt. #558-563). Having reviewed Plaintiff's motion papers, it does not appear that Plaintiff advances any argument s premised on occurrences that postdate the events already addressed in the Court's August 28, 2020 Order denying Plaintiff's first motion for recusal. See Abraham v. Leigh, No. 17 Civ. 5429 (KPF), 2020 WL 5095655 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2020). More fundamentally, for the reasons already discussed at great length in several prior orders, the allegations that Plaintiff reiterates in support of the instant motion are almost entirely factually inaccurate. See e.g., Abraham v. Leigh, No. 17 Civ . 5429 (KPF), 2020 WL 5512718 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 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). And those allegation s that do not misperceive or misstate the facts, such as references to the Court's decisions adverse to Plaintiff, are insufficient grounds for recusal. See Bishop v. United States, No. 04 Civ. 3633(CSH), 2004 WL 1497690, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2004) ("Rulings adverse to aparty are not regarded in and of themselves as evidence of such bias orprejudice as would require recusal."). Therefore, for the reasons alreadydiscussed in the Court's August 28, 2020 Order, see 2020 WL 50 95655, at*11-12, Plaintiff's second motion for recusal is DENIED.Additionally, the Court notes that Plaintiff continues to put irrelevantand sensitive personal information about Plaintiff's former counsel on thepublic docket. Therefore, the Clerk of Court is directed to seal docket entries559-563, to be viewable by the Court and parties only.SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 10/14/2020) (rro)

October 1, 2020

Filing 554 ORDER: Plaintiff focuses entirely on reconsideration of the Court's October 22,2019 decision imposing sanctions on Plaintiff, and does not offer anyindependent basis for reconsideration of the Court's September 14, 2020Opinion and Order i mposing attorneys' fees and costs on her. (See generallyPl. Br.; Pl. Decl.). Because, as explained above, the Court declines toreconsider its October 22, 2019 decision to sanction Plaintiff, and becausePlaintiff has offered no additional reason for reconsideration of the fees andcosts imposed in the Court's September 14, 2020 Opinion and Order, Plaintiff'smotion for reconsideration of the September 14, 2020 Opinion and Order isalso denied and further set forth in this Order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 10/1/2020) (rro)

September 14, 2020

Filing 539 OPINION AND ORDER re: 400 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document 395 Letter, 399 Letter, 398 Letter, 397 Letter, 396 Letter addressed to Judge Katherine Polk Failla from Colleen Ni Chairmhaic, former counsel for Plaintiff d ated 11/6/2019. filed by Colleen M Ni Chairmhaic, 407 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Abby Leigh. For the reasons set forth in this Opinion and Order, the Court sanctions Plaintiff and awards to Defendant Leigh attorneys' fees in the amount of $52,507.50 and costs in the amount of $637.10. Plaintiff is directed to pay this sanction to Defendant Leigh, in care of her attorneys, within 30 days of the date of this Opinion and Order. The Clerk of Court is directed t o terminate the motion at docket entry 407. In addition, the Court observes that an open motion at docket entry 400 was previously resolved, and it thus directs the Clerk of Court to terminate that motion as well. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 9/14/2020) (rro)

August 28, 2020

Filing 538 OPINION AND ORDER re: 506 MOTION to Unseal Case Documents and Reinstate Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. filed by Robyn Abraham. For the reasons set forth in the remainder of this Opinion, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED; Plaintiff's motion to unseal is DENIED; and Plaintiff's motion for recusal is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 506. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 9/28/2020) (rro)

August 17, 2020

Filing 537 ORDER: The Court has reviewed its scheduling Order dated July 24, 2020 (Dkt. #515), and recognizes that it permitted Plaintiff to file a response in support of her motions for reconsideration on or by August 14, 2020. The Court therefore accepts Pl aintiff's reply dated August 14, 2020 (Dkt. #535), and withdraws its incorrect prior Order dated August 17, 2020, rejecting Plaintiff's reply (Dkt. #536), with apologies to the parties for any inconvenience or confusion caused by the Order docketed at No. 536. For the sake of clarity, the Court will consider Plaintiff's reply brief (Dkt. #535), in deciding Plaintiff's motions for reconsideration and disqualification of the Court. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 8/17/2020) (rro)

August 5, 2020

Filing 533 ORDER: The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's documents, filed on August 4, 2020, styled on ECF as "Notice of Filing Supplement to Plaintiff's Motions" (Dkt. #526),"Brief" (Dkt. #527), and "Notice of Plaintiff 9;s Supplemental Exhibits" (Dkt. #529-#532). As an initial matter, the Court notes that most of these documents are misfiled. (E.g., Dkt. #527 (document filed as a "Brief" is not a brief at all, but is in fact a collection of PDFs of s everal documents styled as exhibits, two of which are labelled Exhibit A and one labelled Exhibit B)). Additionally, Plaintiff has already filed most, if not all, of these "exhibits" along with her earlier motions. They are therefore unne cessary to supplement Plaintiff's pending motions. Furthermore, the Court is concerned that Plaintiff is attempting to file motions by accretion, with voluminous, duplicative, supplemental filings, thereby abusing ECF and wasting judicial resour ces. For these reasons, the Court will accept Plaintiff's latest filings (Dkt. #526532), but nothing more until Plaintiff's pending motions are resolved. The Court reminds Plaintiff of the Order issued just two days ago, on August 3, 2020 , imploring her to think about her filings and to refrain from wasting the time and resources of the Court and parties. If Plaintiff is unwilling or unable to comply with Court orders, the Court is willing for the first time to suspend Plaintiff&# 039;s ECF filing privileges. Finally, because many of the documents Plaintiff filed on August 4, 2020, disclose irrelevant, salacious, or personally sensitive material, the Court will seal Docket Nos. 527-532, to be viewable by the Court and parties only. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 8/5/2020) (rro)

July 8, 2020

Filing 505 OPINION AND ORDER re: 429 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Abby Leigh. For the reasons set forth above, Defendant's motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff's breach of contract claim is GRANTED. Defendant's mot ion for summary judgment in favor of her own counterclaim for breach of a fiduciary duty is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 429. Defendant is hereby ORDERED to file a letter proposing next steps concerning her counterclaim on or before July 29, 2020. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 7/8/2020) (rro)

April 6, 2020

Filing 498 ORDER: For these reasons, each of Plaintiff's three requests is DENIED. Given the number and the tenor of Plaintiff's submissions in recent weeks and their diminishing fidelity to the record in this case the Court is convinced that mo re drastic steps are necessary to prevent Plaintiff from clogging the Court's docket with irrelevant, if not false, information and unduly burdening Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff is precluded from filing further submissions of any type u ntil the earlier of a further order of the Court in this regard, or the Court's resolution of Defendants' pending motion for summary judgment. The Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to strike docket entries 481 through 489, which entries P laintiff filed as her papers in opposition to Defendants' pending motion for summary judgment. The Court will instead docket the materials that Plaintiff submitted to the Court via email on March 11, 2020, thus ensuring adherence to its March 2 7, 2020 Order. (Dkt. #492). Finally, the Court is in receipt of Defendants' request that the Court shorten the 21-day safe harbor under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, within which Plaintiff might withdraw her motion to reopen discovery. (Dkt. #490). Such application is DENIED at this time. The Court believes the solution it has outlined in this Order to be sufficient. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 4/3/2020) (rro)

March 30, 2020

Filing 492 ORDER: Plaintiff's application is DENIED. Plaintiff's March 11, 2020 submissions in opposition to the pending motion for summary judgment do not make reference to any documents that Plaintiff had intended to file but was unable to do so d ue to file size limitations. Indeed, these March 11, 2020 submissions make reference only to the opposition brief, Rule 56.1 counterstatement, and Exhibits A through J. The Court is forced to conclude that Plaintiff is seeking to file a sur-reply in opposition to Defendants' reply papers. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that she is entitled to such do so. Accordingly, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to file on the public docket as her submissions in opposition to the pending motion for summary j udgment only those documents that she emailed to the Court and Leigh Defendants on March 11, 2020. The Court will review these filings to ensure that they do not differ in any respect from those received on March 11, 2020. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 3/27/2020) (rro)

March 26, 2020

Filing 476 ORDER granting 473 Letter Motion to Seal. Application GRANTED. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 3/25/2020) (rro)

March 18, 2020

Filing 471 ORDER: On June 10, 2019, the Court entered an Order, setting a deadline of November 15, 2019, for the filing of pre-motion letters concerning contemplated summary judgment motions. (Dkt. #230). Plaintiff requested leave to file a motion for summary judgment for the first time on February 25, 2020. (Dkt. #450). On February 27, 2020, the Court entered an Order requiring Plaintiff to file a letter on or before March 6, 2020, demonstrating good cause as to why she failed to file a pre-motion submission by the November 15, 2019 deadline. (Dkt. #455). The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's March 6, 2020 letter seeking leave to file a motion for summary judgment and attempting to demonstrate good cause as to why sh e did not comply with the Court's June 10, 2019 Order. (Dkt. #459). The Court is also in receipt of the Leigh Defendants' March 12, 2020 Letter in opposition to Plaintiff's request. (Dkt. #463, 464). Plaintiff's ap plication to file an untimely motion for summary judgment is hereby DENIED. Plaintiff has failed to establish good cause for her failure to abide by the Court's June 10, 2019 Order, which gave the parties five months in which to make pre- motion submissions for anticipated motions for summary judgment. Nor has Plaintiff established that her failure to do so was the result of excusable negligence. Further, upon review of Defendants' motion for summary judgment pape rs, Plaintiff's opposition papers, and the exhibits that Plaintiff has submitted to the Court to demonstrate the likelihood of success of her anticipated motion for summary judgment, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's motion for summ ary judgment, were it to be filed, would not have a reasonable likelihood of success. Thus, it would be a waste of the parties' and the Court's resources to allow Plaintiff to file an untimely motion for summary judgment. In so deciding, the Court does not express any opinion as to the likelihood of success of Defendants' motion for summary judgment, which has not yet been fully briefed. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 3/18/2020) (mro)

February 27, 2020

Filing 455 ORDER. If Plaintiff wishes to file a summary judgment motion, she is ORDERED to file a letter on or before March 6, 2020, demonstrating good cause as to why she failed to file a pre-motion submission by the November 15, 2019 deadline. (Dkt. #230). This letter is not to exceed three pages in length. Defendants shall file their reply, if any, on or before March 13, 2020. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 2/27/2020) (rjm)

February 12, 2020

Filing 443 ORDER: The Court has received notice that Plaintiff has paid the outstanding invoices owed to Hudson Reporting. Accordingly, the Order to Show Cause hearing currently scheduled for February 14, 2020, is hereby ADJOURNED sine die. SO ORDERED. ***Hearings Terminated*** The following hearing(s) was terminated: Show Cause Hearing. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 2/11/2020) (jca)

January 27, 2020

Filing 438 ORDER granting 436 Motion to Seal Document. Application GRANTED. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 1/24/2020) (rro) Transmission to Sealed Records Clerk for processing.

December 11, 2019

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)

December 10, 2019

Filing 417 ORDER granting 416 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document in Response to Plaintiff's sealed December 8, 2019. Application GRANTED. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 12/9/2019) (jca)

September 9, 2019

Filing 319 OPINION AND ORDER re: 101 MOTION to Dismiss Defendant Abby Leigh's Counterclaim filed by Robyn Abraham. Given the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion to dismiss Defendant Leigh's Amended Counterclaims is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 101. The parties are hereby ORDERED to provide a joint letter regarding the status of outstanding discovery concerning the counterclaims on or before September 26, 2019. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 9/9/2019) (rro)

July 30, 2018

Filing 83 ORDER denying 67 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 69 Motion for Reconsideration. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants Honig's and Wasserman'smotions for reconsideration are DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed toterminate the motions at Docket Entries 67 and 69. The Court will considerseparately the proposed Case Management Plan submitted by the parties.SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 7/30/2018) (rro)

Search for this case: Abraham v. Leigh et al
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Robyn Abraham
Represented By:	Susan Lee Shin
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Abby Leigh
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Martha Wasserman
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Hellen Darion
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Alan Honig
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Available Case Documents