Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 27, 2024

De La Cruz v. MDBH Mobile 3 Inc.

Judge
Sarah Netburn
Docket
1:22-cv-03053
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

De La Cruz v. MDBH Mobile 3, Judge Netburn held Kevin Johnson in civil contempt and imposed a $100-per-business-day fine until he filed CLE proof.

Who this affects

Kevin Johnson was directly affected by the contempt finding and the $100-per-business-day fine. The defendants were also affected because Johnson represented them and had not been relieved as counsel; the opinion states that his noncompliance prejudiced his former clients.

What happened

In De La Cruz v. MDBH Mobile 3 Inc., Kevin Johnson represented the defendants. The court had ordered him to complete two ethics continuing-education credits about law-firm administration or legal-practice management and file proof by May 31, 2024.

Johnson did not file the required proof and did not respond to the court’s order asking why he should not be held in civil contempt. The court found that he repeatedly violated clear orders and made no diligent effort to comply.

Judge Sarah Netburn held Johnson in civil contempt and ordered a $100 fine for every business day beginning July 1, 2024, continuing until he filed proof that he completed the two required credits.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
De La Cruz v. MDBH Mobile 3 Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-03053
Judge
Sarah Netburn
Date
June 27, 2024

Background

Kevin Johnson represented the defendants in the action, along with Jason Mizrahi of Levin-Epstein & Assoc. The court had not yet approved a proposed substitution of counsel because Johnson remained in default of earlier court orders and had not been relieved as defendants’ counsel.

The court had previously ordered Johnson to pay plaintiffs’ counsel for one hour at counsel’s prevailing market rates after he missed a February 9, 2024 conference. It also ordered him to complete at least two ethics continuing-education credits related to firm administration or legal-practice management by May 31, 2024, and to file a certification or other proof that he had completed them.

Civil Contempt

The court explained that civil contempt may be imposed when a person fails to comply with a clear and unambiguous court order, the violation is proven by clear and convincing evidence, and the person has not made a diligent, reasonable effort to comply.

The court found that the order requiring Johnson to file proof of the ethics credits was clear and unambiguous. Johnson never filed the proof, made no attempt to comply, and did not respond to the related order to show cause, even after the court emailed it to him directly. The court also found that his failure to engage in the litigation prejudiced his former clients and required the court to spend significant resources pursuing compliance.

Ruling and Remedy

Judge Sarah Netburn held Johnson in civil contempt. The court imposed a coercive fine of $100 per business day, starting July 1, 2024, and continuing each business day until Johnson filed proof that he had completed two ethics continuing-education credits related to firm administration or legal-practice management.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.