Schuster v. Charter Communications, Inc.
- Richard Sullivan
- 1:18-cv-01826
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Schuster v. Charter, Judge Sullivan denied Schuster’s filing requests and ordered him to explain an alleged filing-injunction violation.
Akobi Schuster’s ability to file the proposed complaints, grievances, petitions, and lawsuit without prior permission, and Charter Communications, Inc.’s request for further sanctions.
What happened
In Schuster v. Charter Communications, Inc., Akobi Schuster asked permission to file several complaints, grievances, and petitions related to his earlier litigation against Charter Communications, Inc. The court had previously dismissed his complaint with prejudice as a sanction and barred certain new filings without prior court permission.
The court found that all eight proposed filings fell within the filing injunction because they concerned the earlier dispute, Charter’s response, or the conduct of people and entities involved in the litigation. It also found that the proposed filings repeated allegations that Schuster had already raised or had an opportunity to raise. Charter separately alleged that Schuster had violated the injunction by filing another complaint in New York state court without permission.
Judge Richard J. Sullivan denied Schuster’s requests for permission. He ordered Schuster to submit a letter explaining why that state-court filing should not be treated as a violation warranting denial of all future permission requests. The court did not impose monetary penalties or contempt sanctions in this order, but warned that additional sanctions could follow.
The detailed version
- Schuster v. Charter Communications, Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-01826
- Richard Sullivan
- June 27, 2022
Background
In April 2021, the court dismissed Akobi Schuster’s complaint against Charter Communications, Inc. with prejudice as a sanction under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court also imposed a filing injunction, meaning Schuster could not file certain actions, motions, petitions, complaints, or requests for relief without first obtaining permission from the court.
The injunction covered filings related to the cable-box incident alleged in the earlier complaint, Charter’s alleged response to that incident or to Schuster’s workplace-safety complaints, and Charter’s conduct in defending earlier actions. It also covered filings against people or entities that encountered Schuster during the federal litigation. The earlier orders warned that violations could result in denial of later requests, monetary penalties, or contempt.
Requests for Permission
Schuster sought permission to make eight proposed filings:
- An administrative complaint against Charter with the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wages and Hours Division concerning an alleged unpaid-leave claim.
- A complaint against “Sedgewick,” identified in the opinion as the company handling Charter’s leave requests.
- A request to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to modify its dismissal of his retaliation claim against Charter.
- An attorney grievance against Kenneth Margolis and Erica Frank, identified as Charter’s counsel in the underlying case.
- A complaint against Department of Labor investigator Jose Delarosa concerning an allegedly false and defamatory report.
- A complaint against unspecified Occupational Safety and Health Administration officials concerning the dismissal of an amended complaint.
- An attorney-discipline complaint against participating attorneys of Kauf McGuire & Margolis concerning an alleged misrepresentation about a New York state-court decision.
- A defamation lawsuit against those attorneys and Charter based on the same alleged misrepresentation.
The court held that these proposed filings plainly related to matters covered by the filing injunction and involved people or entities encountered during the federal litigation. The court further agreed that the proposals repeated allegations that had been included in the previously dismissed complaint or had already been filed and dismissed in other proceedings. It therefore concluded that the proposed claims were not new or meritorious within the meaning of the earlier injunction.
Alleged Violation and Show-Cause Order
Charter alleged that Schuster had violated the filing injunction by filing a complaint against Charter in New York state court on March 10, 2022, without first obtaining permission from this court. Charter asked for more severe sanctions, but did not identify the specific sanctions it wanted.
The court stated that it was not prepared to consider civil contempt or monetary penalties unless Charter specifically requested those sanctions and Schuster received an opportunity to respond. Separately, the court ordered Schuster to show cause—that is, to explain in writing—why the state-court filing should not be treated as a violation of the injunction. The court said that, unless Schuster showed otherwise, the alleged violation could warrant summary denial of all future requests for permission under the injunction.
The court limited Schuster’s response to the question whether filing the state-court complaint without permission violated the injunction. It prohibited him from using that response, or other submissions before the court ruled on the show-cause matter, to raise or repeat allegations against people or entities encountered during the litigation, renew filing requests, or make unrelated arguments. The court warned that violating this directive could lead to additional sanctions, including monetary penalties or contempt.
Disposition
The court denied Schuster’s requests for permission under the filing injunction. It ordered him to file a single letter of no more than five typed pages by July 15, 2022, addressing the alleged violation. Charter could file a reply by July 29, 2022. The court also clarified that the filing injunction did not prevent Schuster from appealing this Memorandum and Order, while certifying that any such appeal would not be taken in good faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
This order addressed permission to file and the alleged violation of a prior filing injunction; it did not decide the merits of the proposed underlying claims.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.