Leung v. Starbucks Corporation
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:20-cv-07440
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Leung v. Starbucks, Judge Abrams warned Jofran Mendoza of possible contempt sanctions for missing a deposition and show-cause hearing.
Jofran Mendoza, whose compliance with a deposition subpoena was at issue, and Pauline Leung, who was directed to serve the order and file proof of service.
What happened
Leung v. Starbucks Corporation involves Jofran Mendoza’s repeated failures to appear for a deposition in the case. The court had ordered him to attend a January 28, 2022 hearing and explain why he should not be held in contempt.
Mendoza was personally served with that order but did not attend the hearing. The court warned that, unless he promptly complied with the deposition subpoena, he could face possible arrest, financial penalties, or other civil and criminal sanctions.
Judge Ronnie Abrams directed Pauline Leung to serve the order on Mendoza by overnight mail and file proof of service with the court. The order did not itself impose a listed sanction.
The detailed version
- Leung v. Starbucks Corporation · No. 1:20-cv-07440
- Ronnie Abrams
- Feb. 18, 2022
Background
On December 17, 2021, the court ordered Jofran Mendoza to appear at a telephonic hearing on January 28, 2022, and show cause—explain why—he should not be held in contempt for repeatedly failing to appear for a deposition. The opinion states that Mendoza was personally served with the order but did not attend the hearing.
Court’s Action
The court warned Mendoza that, unless he promptly complied with Pauline Leung’s deposition subpoena, he could be subject to possible arrest, a financial penalty, or other civil and criminal sanctions. The court cited authority stating that contempt sanctions may include a conditional jail term or a remedial fine designed to compensate for losses or coerce compliance.
Disposition
The order directed Leung to serve the order on Mendoza by overnight mail and file proof of service with the court. The opinion does not state that the court imposed a specific contempt sanction in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.