Duka v. Alliance Tri-State Construction, Inc

Background

Rilind Duka brought a collective and proposed class action against Alliance Tri-State Construction, Inc., Alliance Tri-State Maintenance Corp., Argjent Duka, and Merima Mesik Duka. He alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal wage law, and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). According to the amended complaint, Duka worked as a laborer for the defendants from January 1, 2015, through December 15, 2017. He alleges that he worked more than 40 hours per week without overtime pay, was not paid minimum wages and other required wage amounts, experienced delayed wage payments and unlawful deductions, and was not paid prevailing wages and supplemental benefits for work on public projects.

The defendants moved to dismiss the case as a terminating sanction based on an alleged attempt by Duka to influence the testimony of Razi Imerovski. The defendants claimed that Duka asked Imerovski to fabricate testimony and offered him $10,000 to testify for Duka. Duka denied offering Imerovski money. Duka said that he asked Imerovski whether he wanted to join the case or testify about Duka’s employment. The parties also disputed the meaning of a text message in which Duka wrote, “No problem I got to other people.”

Court’s analysis

The court explained that dismissal as a sanction is a severe remedy generally reserved for extreme misconduct. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, courts may impose sanctions for failure to obey discovery orders, including dismissal, but must consider factors such as willfulness, the effectiveness of lesser sanctions, the length of the noncompliance, and whether the party was warned. The court also discussed “fraud upon the court,” meaning conduct that seriously interferes with the fair adjudication of a case. It stated that an isolated instance of alleged perjury, by itself, does not establish fraud upon the court.

The court held that the defendants had not shown by clear and convincing evidence that Duka engaged in a pattern of misconduct or an organized scheme to interfere with the judicial process. The court found Imerovski’s January 15 written statement inconsistent with his later February 11 declaration about whether the alleged offer occurred by telephone or during an in-person meeting. The text messages also did not clearly and convincingly show that Duka sought to bribe Imerovski to give false testimony. The court added that even if Duka had solicited false testimony, the alleged conduct would have been an isolated incident rather than a prolonged pattern or campaign of misconduct.

Ruling

The court DENIED the defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions. The defendants did not request other sanctions, and the court stated that no other sanctions were appropriate on the disputed record. The court also rejected the defendants’ request for permission to seek attorney’s fees for bringing the motion because they were not the prevailing party. The parties were directed to attend an initial pretrial conference, and the Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the sanctions motion from the docket.