Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 30, 2020

Abusikin v. City of New York

Judge
Analisa Torres
Docket
1:18-cv-04582
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Abusikin v. City of New York, Judge Torres granted in part and denied in part defendants’ sanctions motion, ordering plaintiff to pay $250.

Who this affects

Gare labi Abusikin was ordered to pay $250 to the defendants, the City of New York and the named police officer and John Doe defendants; the opinion does not state the effect of the ruling on any other person.

What happened

In Abusikin v. City of New York, the court considered defendants’ request for sanctions under federal civil-procedure rules. No one objected to the recommended decision prepared by Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox.

The court reviewed that recommendation for clear error, found none, and adopted it in full. The opinion states that the sanction was based on the plaintiff’s violation of Judge Fox’s November 19, 2019 order.

Judge Analisa Torres granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ sanctions motion. She ordered the plaintiff to pay defendants $250 and directed the clerk to close the motion.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Abusikin v. City of New York · No. 1:18-cv-04582
Judge
Analisa Torres
Date
June 30, 2020

Background

Defendants moved for sanctions under Rules 41, 37(b), and 30(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The motion concerned the plaintiff’s violation of Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox’s November 19, 2019 order. The opinion does not describe the underlying violation in further detail.

Court’s Review

No party filed objections to Judge Fox’s Report and Recommendation. Judge Analisa Torres reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none. The court therefore adopted the recommendation in its entirety.

Ruling

Judge Torres granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion for sanctions. The order requires the plaintiff to pay defendants $250 as a sanction for violating Judge Fox’s November 19, 2019 order. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 60.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.