Abraham v. Leigh
- Katherine Failla
- 1:17-cv-05429
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Abraham v. Leigh, Judge Failla denied public filing and conditionally denied without prejudice a contempt motion over unpaid sanctions.
Robyn Abraham and Abby Leigh, as executor of the Estate of Mitch Leigh; the order also directs Abraham to provide recurring confidential submissions.
What happened
In Abraham v. Leigh, Robyn Abraham had been ordered to pay Abby Leigh, as executor of Mitch Leigh’s estate, $53,144.60 in attorneys’ fees and costs after a sanctions ruling. Abraham had not complied and submitted confidential materials to support her claimed poverty and efforts to comply.
Abraham asked to place those materials on the public docket. The court said the submissions repeated allegations it had previously rejected and included material unrelated to her compliance efforts. The court also considered her explanation for why poverty excused nonpayment, but the opinion contains redacted details about the evidence and the required future submissions.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied Abraham’s request to file the submissions publicly and conditionally denied without prejudice Leigh’s motion for a finding of civil contempt. The court directed Abraham to make recurring submissions ex parte and under seal and said it could reconsider contempt if she failed to provide the required proof.
The detailed version
- Abraham v. Leigh · No. 1:17-cv-05429
- Katherine Failla
- Jan. 27, 2021
Background
The court had previously ordered Robyn Abraham to pay $53,144.60 in attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Abby Leigh, as executor of the Estate of Mitch Leigh, after partially granting Leigh’s motion for sanctions. The court stated that Abraham had not complied with that order. Leigh therefore had a pending motion asking the court to find Abraham in civil contempt, meaning to impose consequences for disobeying the court’s order.
In December 2020, the court postponed deciding the contempt motion and allowed Abraham to submit confidential information addressing two issues: her claimed poverty and her diligence in trying to comply with the sanctions order. Abraham filed those materials ex parte, meaning for the court’s review without public filing, and asked to place them on the public docket.
Public-filing request
The court denied Abraham’s request to make the submissions public. It stated that the submissions repeated allegations the court had previously rejected, contained arguments unrelated to Abraham’s diligence in complying with the sanctions order, and included allegations the court characterized as false conspiracies and potentially vexatious arguments.
Poverty and compliance
The court reiterated that it had not forced Abraham to enter a settlement agreement and was not responsible for her obligations under that agreement. It also stated that Abraham had not accounted for the disposition of a significant sum she received through the settlement. The court nevertheless credited part of Abraham’s proof of indigence. Several passages describing that proof and the information Abraham was ordered to submit are redacted in the opinion provided here.
The court directed Abraham to submit additional information ex parte and under seal on a recurring monthly schedule. The available text does not identify all of the required information because those portions are redacted. A footnote gives an example requiring a submission by March 1, 2021, concerning specified weeks in February 2021.
Ruling and effect
The court conditionally denied without prejudice Leigh’s motion for a finding of civil contempt. This meant the court did not grant the contempt motion at that time and left open the possibility of revisiting the issue if Abraham failed to substantiate her claimed poverty as required. The court also denied Abraham’s request for public filing and directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 573.
The order was filed in redacted form because the decision relied in part on information Abraham submitted privately to the court. The opinion states that an unredacted version was provided to Abraham.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.