Ray v. Balestriere Fariello
- Rochon
- 1:18-cv-11211
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ray v. Balestriere Fariello, Judge Rochon adopted a report recommending denial of Ames Ray’s sanctions motion over alleged disclosure of settlement information.
Ames Ray and defendants Balestriere Fariello and John G. Balestriere, because the court adopted the recommendation addressing Ray’s sanctions motion and terminated that motion.
What happened
In Ray v. Balestriere Fariello, Ames Ray asked the court to sanction Balestriere Fariello and John G. Balestriere. Ray accused them of improperly disclosing confidential information from an October 2020 settlement conference held before Magistrate Judge Parker.
The court sent the sanctions request to Magistrate Judge Parker, who recommended denying it for several reasons, including that the alleged conduct occurred in state court rather than federal court. Neither side filed objections by the deadline.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon reviewed the recommendation for clear error and adopted it in full. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending sanctions motion, and the court said the lack of timely objections prevented appellate review of the decision.
The detailed version
- Ray v. Balestriere Fariello · No. 1:18-cv-11211
- Rochon
- May 28, 2024
Background
On December 4, 2023, Ames Ray moved for sanctions against Balestriere Fariello and John G. Balestriere. Ray alleged that the defendants improperly disclosed confidential information concerning an October 2020 settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Parker.
Report and Recommendation
The court referred the sanctions motion to Magistrate Judge Parker. On May 10, 2024, Judge Parker issued a Report and Recommendation advising that the motion be denied on several grounds, including that the alleged improper conduct occurred in state court rather than federal court. The report clearly warned that failing to object on time would waive objections and prevent appellate review.
Under federal law and court rules, the parties generally had 14 days after service to object. The deadline was May 24, 2024, and neither party filed objections.
Ruling
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon therefore reviewed the report for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the record. The court found that the report was factually and legally sound and not clearly erroneous, and adopted it in its entirety. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the pending motion at ECF No. 204. The court also stated that, because the parties received clear notice and filed no timely objections, appellate review of the decision was precluded.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.