Vicente v. Ljubica Contractors LLC and Pedro [LNU]
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:18-cv-00419
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Vicente v. Ljubica Contractors, Judge Wang shifted a $3,678.28 sanction from the defendants to their former lawyer.
The order relieved Ljubica Contractors LLC, Predrag Jankovic, and their current counsel from the sanction and placed the $3,678.28 payment obligation on former counsel John P. DeMaio personally.
What happened
In Juan R. Vicente, et al. v. Ljubica Contractors LLC and Predrag Jankovic, the plaintiffs sought sanctions against the defendants and their former lawyer, John P. DeMaio.
The court had previously ordered the defendants and DeMaio to pay $3,678.28 because DeMaio missed three court conferences and failed to follow several pretrial orders. The defendants later obtained new counsel and said they had been unaware of their former lawyer’s conduct and the case’s procedural developments.
The court declined to impose sanctions on the defendants or their current counsel. Judge Ona T. Wang modified the earlier order so it applied only to DeMaio personally and ordered him to pay $3,678.28 to the plaintiffs’ counsel by December 23, 2022.
The detailed version
- Vicente v. Ljubica Contractors LLC and Pedro [LNU] · No. 1:18-cv-00419
- Vernon Broderick
- Dec. 5, 2022
Background
The court reviewed the plaintiffs’ papers seeking sanctions against Ljubica Contractors LLC, Predrag Jankovic, and the defendants’ former counsel, John P. DeMaio. The defendants filed oppositions, and the plaintiffs filed a reply.
On May 16, 2019, the court had sanctioned the defendants and DeMaio under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f). That rule permits sanctions for certain failures involving court conferences and pretrial orders. The earlier order required payment of $3,678.28 to the plaintiffs’ counsel within 45 days. The court had found that DeMaio missed three scheduled court conferences and failed to comply with several pretrial orders, bringing the case to a standstill, and that he had not shown a substantial justification for those violations. No one had complied with that sanctions order.
After the earlier order, the defendants obtained new counsel and represented that they had been unaware of their former counsel’s conduct and of various court orders in the case.
Ruling
The court declined to impose sanctions on the defendants or their current counsel for DeMaio’s misconduct. It found that the defendants’ reliance on DeMaio, a licensed attorney, to handle compliance with court orders and other obligations was not unreasonable.
The court modified the May 16, 2019 order so that it applied only to DeMaio in his personal capacity. It ordered DeMaio to pay $3,678.28 to the plaintiffs’ counsel by December 23, 2022, and to file proof of payment. The plaintiffs’ counsel was directed to serve the order on DeMaio and file proof of service by December 9, 2022. The Clerk of Court was directed to close ECF 72.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.