Vera v. Colgate Deli & Grocery Corp.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:22-cv-02058
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Vera v. Colgate Deli & Grocery, Judge Ramos found the contempt requirements met but postponed deciding the sanctions.
Marcos Vera, Colgate Deli & Grocery Corp., and Mohamed Abisse were affected. The court found the requirements for contempt sanctions against the defendants established, but had not yet specified the sanctions.
What happened
Marcos Vera asked the court to force Colgate Deli & Grocery Corp. and Mohamed Abisse to answer information subpoenas issued after judgment. The defendants did not respond, and neither Colgate’s counsel nor Abisse appeared for the proceedings described in the order.
The court had already ordered the defendants to answer the subpoenas by January 30, 2025, warning that noncompliance could lead to civil contempt. They still had not responded, so Vera requested sanctions, including Abisse’s arrest or financial penalties against the defendants.
In Vera v. Colgate Deli & Grocery Corp., Judge Ramos found that the requirements for contempt sanctions were established, but reserved a decision on the sanctions’ scope. He scheduled a March 6, 2025 hearing to announce the sanctions and ordered the parties to appear.
The detailed version
- Vera v. Colgate Deli & Grocery Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-02058
- Edgardo Ramos
- Feb. 11, 2025
Background
Marcos Vera filed a post-judgment motion asking the court to compel Colgate Deli & Grocery Corp. and Mohamed Abisse to respond to information subpoenas under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1). The court directed Colgate to retain counsel for post-judgment enforcement matters and directed Abisse either to retain counsel or appear without a lawyer. Neither Colgate’s counsel nor Abisse appeared as directed.
The court later ordered the defendants to show why they should not be held in civil contempt for failing to comply with the subpoenas. After a hearing at which only Vera’s counsel appeared, Vera submitted a proposed contempt order. On January 22, 2025, the court granted Vera’s unopposed motion to compel and ordered the defendants to respond by January 30, 2025, warning that failure to do so could result in civil contempt.
Ruling
The court stated that the defendants still had not responded to the information subpoenas. It found that the requirements for contempt sanctions were met: the January 22 order was clear and unambiguous, the evidence of noncompliance was clear and convincing, and there was no evidence that the defendants had diligently tried to comply in a reasonable manner.
The court did not yet decide the scope of the contempt remedies. Vera had requested an order for Abisse’s arrest or, alternatively, financial sanctions against the defendants. The court scheduled a March 6, 2025 hearing at which it intended to give its opinion and order and announce the contempt sanctions. The parties were ordered to appear, and Vera was ordered to serve the February 11 order on the defendants by first-class mail and Federal Express and file proof of service.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.