Krentsel & Guzman, LLP v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:20-cv-02407
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Krentsel & Guzman v. JPMorgan Chase, Judge Caproni sanctioned counsel for missing a scheduled conference and giving inaccurate explanations.
Ms. Raicus, the plaintiff’s attorney, is subject to the conditional monetary sanction. The defendant would receive the sanction amount if it is imposed; the opinion does not state that Krentsel & Guzman itself was sanctioned.
What happened
In Krentsel & Guzman, LLP v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., the plaintiff’s attorney, Ms. Raicus, did not attend a scheduled pretrial conference that she had requested.
The court said Ms. Raicus missed the conference because she failed to carefully read the scheduling order and enter the conference in her firm’s calendar. The court also found her later explanations unpersuasive and identified inaccuracies in her sworn statements.
Judge Valerie Caproni sanctioned Ms. Raicus by requiring her to pay the defendant an amount equal to one-half hour of the regular billable time of two defense attorneys. The court stayed the sanction while the case continues and said she would not have to pay it if she has no further failures to appear when ordered.
The detailed version
- Krentsel & Guzman, LLP v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. · No. 1:20-cv-02407
- Valerie Caproni
- July 22, 2020
Background
The plaintiff’s attorney, Ms. Raicus, failed to appear for a July 10, 2020, pretrial conference scheduled at her request. The court had posted an order on the docket on July 1 with the conference’s date, time, and telephone information. After court staff called Ms. Raicus at 11:33 a.m. and instructed her to join immediately, she still had not appeared by 11:40 a.m. The court ended the conference, rescheduled it, and ordered her to explain why she should not be sanctioned.
Counsel’s explanations
Ms. Raicus first attributed her absence to technological difficulties in a sworn filing. After the court requested more information, she said she had not been assigned by Krentsel Guzman to handle the conference and that the court’s deputy had given her the wrong telephone number. The court rejected these explanations. It noted that Ms. Raicus had requested the conference, was the only Krentsel Guzman attorney who had appeared in the matter, and had received the correct information on the docket. The court also said her later filings contained inconsistencies and appeared to contradict her earlier statements about when the alleged technological problem occurred and when court staff contacted her.
Before imposing sanctions, the court gave Ms. Raicus an opportunity to review her earlier submissions and correct them. In a third affirmation, she acknowledged that she had failed to read the July 1 order carefully and had not entered the conference in the firm’s calendaring system. The court remained concerned about additional inconsistencies in that filing.
Rule and ruling
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f)(1)(C) permits a district court to sanction an attorney who fails to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order. The court explained that a finding of bad faith is not required and that violating a pretrial order is enough to permit some sanction.
Judge Valerie Caproni sanctioned Ms. Raicus by requiring her to pay the defendant an amount equal to 0.5 hours of the regular billable time of Ms. Haag-Fisk and Mr. Neumann. The court stayed imposition of the sanction for the duration of the matter. It stated that Ms. Raicus would be excused from paying if there were no future incidents in which she failed to appear when ordered. The court also cancelled the hearing scheduled for July 23, 2020.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.