Carrington v. Graden

Background

Rovier Carrington filed an action in New York state court in May 2018, and the defendants removed it to the Southern District of New York. His amended complaint asserted claims including antitrust violations, fraud, breach of contract, unfair competition, theft of trade secrets, and tortious interference. The opinion states that the central allegations involved alleged coercion into sexual relationships, stalled career prospects, and theft of intellectual property.

The defendants challenged the authenticity of several emails attached to the complaint. The court ordered limited discovery and reviewed evidence concerning Carrington’s email accounts, electronic devices, and the emails’ provenance. At a sanctions hearing on October 11, 2019, the court found that Carrington had fabricated or caused the fabrication of key emails and had repeatedly offered false or unsupported explanations for them. The court dismissed the action with prejudice.

The opinion also recounts a later protective-order proceeding in California involving related allegations against Graden. According to the order, evidence presented in that proceeding indicated that telephone numbers had been spoofed to make calls appear to come from Graden. Carrington and his lawyer later failed to appear, and the California court dismissed that matter with prejudice.

Defendants’ Request for an Injunction

In September 2020, the defendants told the court that Carrington intended to sue them again. The court reviewed demand letters from Carrington’s current counsel and found that many of the proposed claims and supporting facts substantially repeated those in the earlier amended complaint. The defendants requested expedited injunctive relief to prevent another lawsuit based on the same subject matter.

The court applied the Second Circuit’s factors for restricting future lawsuits: the litigant’s history of vexatious or duplicative litigation; the litigant’s motive; whether the litigant has counsel; the expense and burden imposed on other parties and the courts; and whether other sanctions would be sufficient.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that Carrington’s past and present conduct showed a clear intent to continue abusing the judicial process. It emphasized the alleged pattern of filing serious claims, fabricating evidence, trying to avoid the consequences when the fabrication was uncovered, and failing to appear in court. The court stated that the number of prior lawsuits did not control because there is no strict minimum number required for this type of injunction.

The court also found that Carrington was not entitled to special consideration given to people who represent themselves without a lawyer. The opinion states that he had counsel when the evidence was fabricated in the federal case and when the California protective-order proceeding was filed, and that he appeared to have counsel at the time of the injunction request.

The court found that Carrington’s conduct had caused unnecessary expense to the defendants and burdened both the federal court and the California state court. It cited defendants’ representation that the federal litigation had produced almost $1 million in legal fees. The court further concluded that earlier sanctions, including dismissal with prejudice and pending fee applications, had not prevented Carrington from threatening to start another case.

The court said the motive factor was neutral because, due to Carrington’s conduct, it had never had the opportunity to determine whether any of his claims were meritorious. The court nevertheless stated that his repeated fabrications and obstructive conduct caused it to view the claims skeptically. It concluded that four of the five factors favored an injunction and that the motive factor did not weigh against one.

Ruling

Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the defendants’ request for a permanent injunction. The order forbids Carrington from filing any future lawsuit in federal or state court arising from or relating to the subject matter of the earlier action without prior authorization from the Southern District of New York. The court also directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at docket entry 174 and directed defense counsel to serve the order on Carrington and his current counsel.