Ke v. J R Sushi 2 Inc

Background

Yi Mei Ke, represented by Troy Law, brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. On March 28, 2022, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer granted summary judgment for defendants Zi Wang and Xin Wang and imposed monetary sanctions against Troy Law under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Ke’s claims against Ruifeng Yang, Kai Tuan Wang, J R Sushi 2 Inc., and Famous Sichuan New York Inc. remained pending.

For the next approximately 25 months, Troy Law did not take steps to move Ke’s remaining claims forward. Among other things, it did not submit a required proposed joint pretrial order. After the court issued an order requiring Ke to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, Magistrate Judge Moses recommended dismissal without prejudice. Judge Engelmayer later declined to adopt that recommendation and returned the matter for findings about whether Ke herself had acted willfully, in bad faith, or with sufficiently serious fault, and whether sanctions should instead be imposed directly on Troy Law.

Communications Between Ke and Her Lawyers

The record showed no communication between Ke and Troy Law from March 28 through the end of June 2022. Ke contacted the firm on July 1, 2022, but did not receive a response until July 31. She contacted the firm eight more times during March and April 2023, but the firm responded only twice. No further communications occurred for about a year. Troy Law contacted Ke after the court issued the order to show cause in May 2024, and the firm later reported that Ke still wanted to pursue the case. Troy Law did not submit a declaration from Ke herself.

Parties’ Positions

The remaining defendants argued that the communication gaps, particularly the year-long gap after April 30, 2023, showed sufficiently serious fault by Ke to justify dismissal. Alternatively, they asked that Troy Law reimburse them for expenses incurred responding to the order to show cause and preparing supplemental briefing.

Ke argued that she was blameless because she had made substantial efforts to communicate with Troy Law. She also argued that the firm had acted in good faith based on its mistaken belief that the proposed joint pretrial order was not due until the court resolved the amount of the earlier sanctions award.

Court’s Analysis

Judge Moses concluded that Ke had made reasonable efforts to keep in touch with her lawyers and that Troy Law had failed to advance the case. The court noted that Troy Law did not contact Ke when Judge Engelmayer issued the summary-judgment decision and did not respond promptly to her July 2022 message. The court also found no evidence that Ke refused to cooperate, failed to return calls, or otherwise prevented her lawyers from pursuing the claims.

The court therefore found no willfulness, bad faith, or sufficiently serious fault by Ke. It also determined that the delay was caused by Troy Law’s disregard of its obligations to its client. Because dismissal is a severe sanction, the court considered whether a lesser sanction would be effective. It concluded that requiring Troy Law to pay the defendants’ delay-related expenses was an appropriate alternative to dismissal, even though monetary reimbursement would not fully address any prejudice caused by the passage of time.

Ruling and Next Steps

The court declined to recommend dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). It ordered Troy Law to reimburse the remaining defendants for reasonable expenses, including attorneys’ fees, incurred because of Ke’s delay, including expenses for preparing responses to the order to show cause. The order did not set a dollar amount. The parties were ordered to meet and confer about the amount; if they could not agree, the defendants had to submit a documented fee application by May 23, 2025, and Ke’s opposition, if any, was due May 30, 2025.

The court also ordered the parties to submit their proposed joint pretrial order to the district judge by June 13, 2025.