Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York
- Lewis Liman
- 1:22-cv-01585
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank, Judge Liman confirmed a fee award as an enforceable judgment, denied a separate judgment, and set a response deadline on a requested stay.
Lori Gardner-Alfred, Jeanette Diaz, their counsel, and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York are affected by the fee judgment and the pending request to stay its enforcement.
What happened
In Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the court addressed the status of an earlier award of attorneys’ fees and costs arising from sanctions. The award required the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to receive $53,808, with $2,400 paid by the plaintiffs’ counsel without reducing the plaintiffs’ obligation.
The court confirmed that its July 13, 2024 order was a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a)(3). It denied the defendant’s alternative request for a separate judgment against the plaintiffs and their counsel.
Judge Lewis J. Liman did not decide the plaintiffs’ request to pause enforcement of the judgment. Instead, he gave the defendant until August 9, 2024, to respond to that request.
The detailed version
- Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York · No. 1:22-cv-01585
- Lewis Liman
- Aug. 6, 2024
Background
On May 17, 2023, the court granted in part and denied in part the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s motion for sanctions. After reviewing further submissions, the court’s July 13, 2024 order granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs. That order stated that the defendant was entitled to $53,808 in attorneys’ fees and costs, and that $2,400 of those fees was to be paid by the plaintiffs’ counsel without offset to the plaintiffs.
Ruling on Judgment Status
The defendant asked the court to clarify that the July order was a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a)(3). The plaintiffs did not dispute that the order was an enforceable judgment. The court confirmed that the order constituted a judgment under Rule 58(a)(3). The court denied the defendant’s alternative request for a separate judgment against the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs’ counsel.
Request to Stay Enforcement
The plaintiffs asked the court to stay proceedings to enforce the judgment. The court stated that it could stay enforcement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62 if a bond or other security were provided. The court did not rule on the stay request in this order; it gave the defendant until August 9, 2024, to respond.
Disposition
The court confirmed that the prior fee-and-costs order constituted an enforceable judgment, denied the request for a separate judgment, and set a deadline for the defendant’s response to the requested stay.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.