Reilly v. The City of New York
- Figueredo
- 1:23-cv-00521
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Reilly v. City of New York, Judge Figueredo denied sanctions because defendants were not explicitly ordered to attend mediation with settlement authority.
The plaintiffs' request for sanctions against the defendants was denied, so the defendants were not ordered to pay the requested costs and fees. The court directed that the sanctions motion be terminated.
What happened
In Reilly v. The City of New York, the plaintiffs asked the court to sanction the defendants for failing to attend a scheduled mediation with settlement authority. The parties had been referred to mediation and told to participate in good faith.
The mediation was postponed several times and eventually scheduled for June 4, 2025. Two days before the session, the defendants said their lawyers would not receive settlement authority, but later confirmed that counsel would attend and could discuss possible settlement ranges. The plaintiffs did not attend and sought the costs and fees connected to two canceled mediations.
The court denied the sanctions request because no court order specifically required the defendants to attend with full settlement authority. Judge Valerie Figueredo also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the sanctions motion.
The detailed version
- Reilly v. The City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-00521
- Figueredo
- July 24, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs requested sanctions against the defendants for their handling of mediation in this case. On February 21, 2024, the court referred the parties to the District's mediation program and instructed them to participate in mediation in good faith. During a later status conference, the court directed the parties to complete mediation by March 31, 2025.
The parties first scheduled mediation for March 6, 2025. After the plaintiffs sent a damages report and settlement demand, the defendants asked to postpone the session. The defendants later said their first available date was June 4, 2025, and the parties scheduled mediation for that date.
At 11:59 p.m. on June 2, the defendants informed the plaintiffs and the mediator that the session would need to be rescheduled because defense counsel would not receive settlement authority from the Comptroller's Office that week. The mediator opposed a short-notice rescheduling and proposed that the mediation proceed. The mediator stated that, at minimum, defense counsel should be able to discuss possible settlement ranges. On June 3, defense counsel confirmed that the defendants would attend the next day's mediation without settlement authority. The plaintiffs did not appear.
The plaintiffs sought sanctions for the costs and fees their counsel incurred in connection with the two canceled mediations. The defendants opposed the request, and the plaintiffs filed a response.
Court's Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f) allows a court to impose sanctions when a party fails to attend a required conference or appears substantially unprepared to participate. A court may also sanction a party for violating a court order. The court explained that sanctions have been imposed in other cases when an order specifically required a party to appear with full settlement authority or with a decision-maker.
The court found that no such order existed here. The February 21, 2024 mediation referral required good-faith participation but did not direct the parties about the substance of the mediation or require them to appear with full settlement authority. The court also found that there was no scheduling order or other order concerning the settlement conference that imposed that requirement.
The court noted that the mediator had not expressly instructed the defendants to bring someone with settlement authority. The defendants therefore did not violate a court order by appearing, or offering to appear, without that authority. The court concluded that sanctions were inappropriate.
Disposition
The court denied the plaintiffs' request for sanctions. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the letter motion at ECF No. 165.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.