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 declined court-cost sanctions, closed the case, and denied Plaintiff’s request to appeal without paying filing fees.
The order affected Plaintiff Domingo Castillo Marcelino, his former counsel, Defendants 374 Food Inc., Tiran Tsadok, and Hayim Tsadok, and the status of the case. It declined to impose court costs on Plaintiff, left the possible criminal referral under consideration, closed the case, and denied Plaintiff permission to appeal without paying filing costs.
What happened
In Domingo Castillo Marcelino v. 374 Food Inc., Defendants’ counsel told the court that Defendants would not seek reimbursement for their costs. Counsel recommended a criminal referral concerning Plaintiff’s conduct and asked the court to assess its own costs against Plaintiff.
The court said it would consider the criminal-referral recommendation but that further public comment would be inappropriate. It declined to assess court costs against Plaintiff because prior cases imposed such costs on lawyers, not parties, and it remained unclear how much Plaintiff’s former counsel contributed to the alleged perjury.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla directed the Clerk to terminate all pending motions, adjourn remaining dates, and close the case. She also ruled that any appeal by Plaintiff would not be taken in good faith and denied Plaintiff permission to appeal without paying filing costs.
The detailed version
- Castillo Marcelino v. 374 Food Inc. · No. 1:16-cv-06287
- Katherine Failla
- Jan. 24, 2020
Background
Defendants’ counsel responded to an earlier court order by stating that Defendants did not intend to seek reimbursement for their costs in the matter. Counsel nevertheless recommended that the court (1) refer Plaintiff’s conduct to the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and (2) assess the court’s costs against Plaintiff.
Criminal referral
The court stated that it would take the recommendation for a criminal referral under consideration. It also stated that further public comment on that issue would be inappropriate. The order does not say whether the court made a referral.
Court-cost assessment
The court researched whether imposing its own costs would be warranted. It found authority for imposing such costs, but the cases it identified imposed them on counsel rather than on the party. The court explained that this approach reflects counsel’s responsibility to understand the consequences of counsel’s actions. Because it remained unclear how much Plaintiff’s alleged perjury was attributable to Plaintiff’s former counsel, the court declined to impose the costs directly on Plaintiff.
Disposition
The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all pending motions, adjourn all remaining dates, and close the case. Plaintiff’s former counsel was ordered to send the court’s message to Plaintiff through the last means by which counsel had been able to contact him. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal by Plaintiff from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Plaintiff permission to appeal without paying filing costs. Judge Katherine Polk Failla signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.