Del Rio v. 257 SG Pizza Corp.
- Ona Wang
- 1:19-cv-03426
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Del Rio v. 257 SG Pizza Corp., Judge Wang declined dismissal but ordered Plaintiff’s counsel to pay $632.88 for missing a conference.
The plaintiff’s counsel was ordered to pay $632.88 to the defendants’ counsel. The plaintiff was not personally sanctioned. The defendants received reimbursement for the attorney fees and transcript costs caused by the missed conference.
What happened
In Carlos Del Rio v. 257 SG Pizza Corp., the plaintiff’s lawyer did not appear for a January 21, 2021 court conference. The court waited nearly 30 minutes, and the plaintiff’s lawyer later explained that a calendaring mistake caused her to believe the conference began at 4:00 p.m. instead of 3:00 p.m.
The plaintiff argued that the mistake did not harm anyone because the conference concerned the defendants’ lawyers’ request to withdraw. The court declined to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute because the plaintiff promptly responded to the court’s order explaining the absence.
Judge Ona T. Wang ordered only the plaintiff’s counsel—not the plaintiff—to reimburse the defendants $632.88 for reasonable attorney fees and transcript costs under the federal rule governing attendance at pretrial conferences. Payment was due by April 20, 2021, and counsel had to file proof of payment.
The detailed version
- Del Rio v. 257 SG Pizza Corp. · No. 1:19-cv-03426
- Ona Wang
- Apr. 6, 2021
Background
The court had scheduled a pretrial conference for January 21, 2021, at 3:00 p.m. The court later converted that conference into a hearing on the defendants’ lawyers’ request to withdraw. The court directed the parties to provide the names and phone numbers of the people who would attend and ordered Defendant Giuseppe Graci to appear.
The defendants’ lawyers and Mr. Graci appeared. Jiajing Fan, the plaintiff’s lawyer, and no one else from her firm appeared. A member of the court’s staff called the plaintiff’s counsel, but the call was not answered. Defense counsel also sent an email. The court and defendants waited nearly 30 minutes.
The next day, the court ordered the plaintiff to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and why the plaintiff should not be required to pay the defendants’ costs and attorney fees related to the conference. Through Ms. Fan, the plaintiff responded that counsel had mistakenly calendared the conference for 4:00 p.m. and had been reviewing documents without monitoring emails or incoming calls. The plaintiff also argued that no one was prejudiced because the hearing concerned the defendants’ withdrawal request.
Court’s Analysis
The court declined, at that time, to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute because the plaintiff had promptly responded to the order to show cause.
The court then applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f), which permits sanctions when a party or lawyer fails to appear at a scheduling or pretrial conference. The rule generally requires payment of reasonable expenses caused by the failure unless the failure was substantially justified or awarding expenses would be unfair.
The court found that the plaintiff’s absence was not substantially justified and that awarding expenses would not be unfair. It rejected the calendaring mistake as a substantial justification and stated that Ms. Fan was responsible for monitoring communications concerning her client and the case. The court also rejected the argument that no one was prejudiced.
Fees and Disposition
The court found the defendants’ requested fees and costs reasonable. The total was $632.88: $585.00 in attorney fees for Milo Silberstein and Amanda Maguire and $47.88 for the hearing transcript. The court noted that both lawyers billed 0.6 hours for attending the conference, much of which was spent waiting for Ms. Fan, and that Ms. Maguire billed an additional 0.2 hours for emails with Ms. Fan and the court.
The court sanctioned the plaintiff’s counsel under Rule 16(f) and ordered counsel to reimburse the defendants for the fees and costs associated with the January 21, 2021 conference. The sanction applied only to the plaintiff’s counsel, not to the plaintiff. Counsel was ordered to pay $632.88 to the defendants’ counsel by April 20, 2021, and file proof of payment.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.