Camacho v. 673 J.R.V. Corp d/b/a Diamond Club
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:22-cv-07107
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Camacho v. 673 J.R.V. Corp, Judge Netburn denied Camacho’s contempt motion over unpaid arbitration fees and set deposition dates.
Camacho’s contempt request was denied. The defendants—673 J.R.V. Corp. d/b/a Diamond Club, John LaCourte, and Lucilene Martins—were not ordered to pay the requested $41,090 in this ruling. Camacho, John LaCourte, and Peter Forchetti were subject to the deposition schedule.
What happened
In Camacho v. 673 J.R.V. Corp d/b/a Diamond Club, Camacho asked the court to hold the defendants in contempt and require them to pay $41,090 in arbitration fees requested during an earlier arbitration proceeding.
The defendants argued that the request was moot because the arbitration had ended and the case was being litigated in federal court. They also argued that Camacho had not shown harm and that the defendants could not pay the fees because of financial distress.
The court denied the contempt motion and set deposition dates: Camacho’s deposition for August 21, 2024, and John LaCourte’s and Peter Forchetti’s depositions for August 22, 2024. Judge Sarah Netburn entered the order on August 8, 2024.
The detailed version
- Camacho v. 673 J.R.V. Corp d/b/a Diamond Club · No. 1:22-cv-07107
- Sarah Netburn
- Aug. 8, 2024
Background
Camacho sought a contempt order based on the defendants’ failure to pay an arbitration deposit requested by Resolute Systems. The requested amount was $41,090. The case was no longer proceeding in arbitration; the parties were litigating it in federal court.
The defendants identified themselves as 673 J.R.V. Corp. d/b/a Diamond Club, John LaCourte, and Lucilene Martins. Their letter also addressed scheduling the parties’ depositions.
Arguments about contempt
The defendants argued that the contempt request was moot because the arbitration had ended and Camacho was not asking the court to return the case to arbitration. They argued that requiring payment of the arbitration fees to Camacho would not restart the arbitration and would give her an improper financial benefit because neither side had paid those fees.
They also argued that Camacho had not suffered compensable harm. According to the letter, the defendants’ inability to pay led to litigation in federal court, the forum where Camacho had originally filed the case. The defendants further argued that any delay could not be attributed to their inability to pay because Camacho requested that federal litigation begin more than two months after the defendants notified Resolute Systems that they could not pay.
Alternatively, the defendants argued that contempt sanctions were unwarranted because their inability to pay resulted from financial distress caused by a business downturn. The letter described the legal requirements for civil contempt as a clear and unambiguous order, clear and convincing evidence that the order was violated, and a failure by the alleged contemnor to clearly establish an inability to comply.
Ruling and scheduling order
The court denied Camacho’s motion for civil contempt “for the reasons explained in Defendants’ letter.” The stated reasons included that the arbitration was no longer ongoing, that future compliance with an order requiring payment of arbitration fees to the arbitration forum was not possible, and that Camacho had not shown actual harm requiring compensation.
The court also ordered the deposition schedule. Camacho’s deposition was set for August 21, 2024. John LaCourte’s and Peter Forchetti’s depositions were set for August 22, 2024. Judge Sarah Netburn signed the order on August 8, 2024.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.