Abraham v. Leigh
- Katherine Failla
- 1:17-cv-05429
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Abraham v. Leigh, Judge Failla declined to decide a former-counsel dispute and barred related filings without court permission.
Robyn Abraham and her former counsel, Marcia Wiss, Wiss & Partners, and Colleen Kerwick; the order also restricts Abraham’s future filings in the case.
What happened
Abraham v. Leigh involved a dispute between Robyn Abraham and her former counsel—Marcia Wiss, Wiss & Partners, and Colleen Kerwick—about an alleged violation of a settlement agreement’s “peace clause.” The court noted that the parties had not asked it to retain authority to enforce that agreement and that the dispute arose later and was unrelated to the claims in the case.
The court said the peace-clause dispute had to be resolved in another court with authority to hear it. It also rejected Abraham’s suggestion that her pending appeal required her to file more information about her former counsel in this case.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla ordered that Abraham could not file submissions about Kerwick, Wiss, Wiss & Partners, or her relationship with them without the court’s permission. The court warned that violations could lead to civil or criminal contempt, monetary sanctions, or default in the underlying action, and directed the clerk to terminate the motion at docket entry 943.
The detailed version
- Abraham v. Leigh · No. 1:17-cv-05429
- Katherine Failla
- Oct. 21, 2020
Background
The order addressed a dispute between Plaintiff Robyn Abraham and her former counsel, Marcia Wiss, Wiss & Partners, and Colleen Kerwick. Abraham and her former counsel had an agreement containing a “peace clause” in the settlement agreement between the parties. They disputed whether that clause had been violated.
The court stated that, when Abraham and her former counsel entered their agreement, they did not ask the court to retain jurisdiction—meaning continuing authority—to enforce it. The court also found that the dispute arose after the events at issue in the lawsuit and was unrelated to the underlying claims.
Ruling on Jurisdiction
The court declined to exercise ancillary jurisdiction, which is supplemental authority to decide a related matter outside the lawsuit’s main claims. To the extent the parties sought a determination of whether the peace clause was valid, the court said they had to resolve that dispute in another court with competent jurisdiction. The order did not decide whether the peace clause was valid or whether it had been violated.
Filing Restriction and Sanctions Warning
The court retained and exercised its inherent authority—the court’s power to supervise and control proceedings before it. It concluded that Abraham’s relationship with her former counsel was irrelevant to the claims in the case and that her recent submissions had become increasingly disconnected from the relevant issues, the record, and the truth.
The court ordered that Abraham could not file any further submission in the case regarding Kerwick, Wiss, Wiss & Partners, or her relationship with them unless she first obtained the court’s permission. The court said that, if she violated the order, it would consider available sanctions, including civil or criminal contempt, monetary sanctions, and default in the underlying action. These were potential sanctions identified by the court, not sanctions imposed by this order.
The court also rejected Abraham’s argument that her pending appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit required her to put additional information about her issues with former counsel on this case’s docket. Finally, the clerk was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 943. The order does not identify the subject of that motion or state a separate merits disposition for it.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.