Kiseleva v. Greenspan

Background

Alla Kiseleva brought employment-discrimination claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and state law against Mark Greenspan, Adam Litman, Beautyfix Enterprises LLC doing business as Beautyfix Medspa, Beautyfix Medical PLLC doing business as Beautyfix Medical Spa, Beautyfix Holdings LLC, Beauty FX Spa Inc., and Maya Benayoun. After discovery, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on May 19, 2025. Summary judgment is a decision ending claims when the evidence does not show a legally sufficient basis for a trial.

Defendants then moved for attorneys’ fees. Kiseleva opposed the motion, although the Court noted that her opposition was late. The Court declined to decide the fee motion by default. The opinion also states that, on August 18, 2025, Kiseleva appeared without a lawyer and reported that her counsel, Anuradha Lazarre, had stopped responding and had not provided requested case files. Lazarre remained counsel of record. The Court ordered Lazarre to confer with Kiseleva and update the Court about the case files and whether she intended to withdraw, but Lazarre did not comply.

Attorneys’ Fees Analysis

The Court explained that a defendant who prevailed on a claim under Section 1981 may receive reasonable attorneys’ fees only after a finding that the plaintiff’s action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. Losing the case alone does not establish that the case met that standard.

The Court’s earlier denials of Defendants’ motions to dismiss weighed against finding that Kiseleva’s claims were frivolous. Those rulings had determined that she adequately pleaded her employment-discrimination claims and could litigate them. The Court also found that the summary-judgment record was very limited, partly because Defendants did not depose Kiseleva and Kiseleva did not depose one Defendant. As a result, the Court could not determine whether the claims were truly frivolous or whether Kiseleva’s counsel had failed to present the opposition effectively.

The Court noted that Kiseleva’s position that every non-Slavic injector worked as an employee while every Slavic injector was classified as an independent contractor was inaccurate based on the record. But the Court explained that she did not need to prove that broad claim to defeat summary judgment; she needed to identify one comparable person who was treated differently. The Court attributed her failure to present supporting evidence to counsel’s failure to understand what evidence was needed, rather than to frivolousness or a complete lack of foundation.

Ruling

Judge Valerie Caproni ordered that Defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees was DENIED. The Court stated that it would not punish Kiseleva for her attorney’s shortcomings.

The Court further ordered Lazarre to show cause by Friday, October 10, 2025, why she should not be sanctioned for failing to comply with the earlier order. “Show cause” means explaining why the court should not take the proposed action. The Clerk was directed to terminate the open fee motion at Docket Entry 107.