Pina v. United States

Background

Frederick D. Pina brought this case without a lawyer under the Federal Tort Claims Act. He originally sought $146,450,000 from the United States for a 2018 automobile accident in which a United States Postal Service truck collided with his 2017 Cadillac sedan. He alleged vehicle damage, neck pain, a pinched nerve in his back, and the loss of a beverage contract that he hoped to negotiate for his startup company, Japanese Juices, LLC.

In an Opinion and Order dated May 12, 2021, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer dismissed Pina’s lost-business-opportunity claim but allowed him to continue pursuing up to $450,000 for personal injuries and property damage. Pina later filed five successive motions or letter-motions seeking to vacate that ruling and restore the lost-business claim. The court denied the third and fourth attempts. On December 27, 2022, Judge Engelmayer also denied the fifth attempt and imposed a filing restriction requiring Pina to obtain court approval before filing further motions seeking to restore that claim.

Sanction and nonpayment

At an April 14, 2022 telephone conference, Judge Moses gave Pina an opportunity to withdraw his latest motion without a penalty. She warned him that continuing to file repetitive motions could lead to sanctions and directed him to notify the court of his decision without adding new arguments. A written April 15 order repeated that instruction.

Pina declined to withdraw the motion and instead submitted new legal arguments. On April 25, 2022, the court ordered him to pay $100 to the Clerk of Court as a sanction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f), finding that he had violated the express instruction not to include additional argument. Pina did not object to that order or seek reconsideration. He appealed, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed the appeal on September 12, 2022.

Pina did not pay the $100 penalty. The court issued additional payment deadlines on February 16 and March 13, 2023, but no payment was made. In a March 1 filing, Pina stated that he had not paid because he considered Judge Moses’s orders illegal and unenforceable. The court concluded that his refusal to comply was intentional and willful. The opinion also stated that Pina had not claimed financial inability to pay and noted his statements about retaining expert witnesses and arranging funds to pay deposition fees.

Court’s analysis

Rule 16(f) allows a court to impose sanctions when a party fails to obey a scheduling or pretrial order. Through Rule 37(b)(2), the available sanctions include staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed, dismissing the action or part of it, entering default judgment, or treating the failure as contempt of court.

Judge Moses explained that a court has broad discretion to choose an appropriate sanction and generally should use the least harsh sanction that adequately addresses the misconduct. She found Pina’s conduct contemptuous but selected a stay as the lesser sanction. The stay was intended to prevent Pina from continuing to impose costs on the United States while refusing to meet his own payment obligation and to encourage compliance with the $100 order.

Disposition

The court ordered that the action be stayed pending further order and placed on the suspense docket. The stay is not described as permanent. After paying the penalty, Pina may move to lift the stay and resume active litigation. Judge Moses cautioned that if Pina unreasonably delays paying the penalty and seeking to lift the stay, the action may be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The opinion does not state that such a dismissal occurred in this order.