Castillo Marcelino v. 374 Food Inc.
- Katherine Failla
- 1:16-cv-06287
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Castillo Marcelino v. 374 Food Inc., Judge Failla forfeited plaintiff’s judgment as a sanction for extensive perjury and denied fee-free appeal status.
Domingo Castillo Marcelino lost his judgment award and was denied fee-free appeal status. The defendants and their counsel could seek reimbursement of costs, but the court did not yet award a specific amount.
What happened
Castillo Marcelino v. 374 Food Inc. concerned sanctions against Domingo Castillo Marcelino after the court had previously found that he was entitled to damages but had committed perjury while pursuing the case. The court sought his response about possible sanctions, but he did not respond to the court’s orders or attend the scheduled hearing.
At the hearing, a defendant asked the court to set aside the judgment under a rule allowing relief for fraud or misconduct. The court explained that the one-year deadline for that procedure had expired. It instead relied on its inherent power to forfeit an award when a party has committed extensive perjury.
Judge Failla ordered that Castillo Marcelino’s judgment award be forfeited. The court also invited the defendants and their lawyers to request reimbursement of costs, ordered Castillo Marcelino’s former lawyer to send him the order, and denied fee-free appeal status after finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Castillo Marcelino v. 374 Food Inc. · No. 1:16-cv-06287
- Katherine Failla
- Dec. 11, 2019
Background
The court stated that, in an earlier opinion, it found that Domingo Castillo Marcelino was entitled to damages but had committed perjury during his prosecution of the case. The court invited briefing on whether sanctions were appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 or the court’s inherent powers. It later ordered Castillo Marcelino to show cause—meaning to explain why the court should not impose sanctions, including forfeiture of his judgment. Despite efforts to contact him, he did not respond to the orders. He also did not appear at the December 9, 2019 show-cause hearing.
Rule 60 Request
At the hearing, a defendant asked the court to formally set aside the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Rule 60(b)(3) permits relief from a final judgment for fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party. But Rule 60(c)(1) requires such a request to be made within one year after entry of the judgment or order. The court described that deadline as absolute. It also stated that the broader provision in Rule 60(b)(6) could not be used to avoid the one-year limit applicable to the specific provisions.
Inherent-Power Sanction
The court concluded that it had inherent power to order forfeiture of Castillo Marcelino’s award in response to his perjury. Relying on the extensive perjury described in its prior opinion, the court found that this severe sanction was warranted. The court therefore ordered that Castillo Marcelino’s judgment award be forfeited.
Other Orders
The court found that the defendants and their counsel had incurred costs because of Castillo Marcelino’s failure to prosecute the case and respond to the court’s orders. It did not itself award a specific amount. Instead, it invited the defendants and their counsel to petition for reimbursement by January 11, 2020. The court also ordered Castillo Marcelino’s former counsel to transmit the order to him through the last available means of contact.
Finally, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status for that appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.