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: 28:1332
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
November 24, 2020 Opinion or Order 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 Opinion or Order 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 Opinion or Order 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 Opinion or Order 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 Opinion or Order 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 Opinion or Order 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 Opinion or Order 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 Opinion or Order 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 Opinion or Order 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 Opinion or Order 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 Opinion or Order 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 Opinion or Order 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 Opinion or Order 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 Opinion or Order 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 Opinion or Order 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 Opinion or Order 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 Opinion or Order 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 Opinion or Order 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 Opinion or Order 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 Opinion or Order 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 Opinion or Order 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 Opinion or Order 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 Opinion or Order 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 Opinion or Order 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 Opinion or Order 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)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

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 ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?