Keung v. Patisseries Saines Corp.
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-03725
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Keung v. Patisseries Saines, Judge Cronan scheduled a conference about Defendants’ anticipated sanctions motion.
Plaintiff Lin Kwok Keung, Defendants Patisseries Saines Corp. and 7 Wu Real Estate Ltd., and counsel for all parties were affected by the scheduled sanctions conference and related directions.
What happened
In Keung v. Patisseries Saines Corp., Defendants planned to ask for sanctions under federal law and the Court’s inherent authority. The opinion says the case had been dismissed very early, before discovery, but does not describe the underlying claims or the dismissal’s terms.
The Court ordered a telephone conference for April 25, 2023, so the parties could discuss the anticipated sanctions motion. It directed Defendants to explain why sanctions would be appropriate and what evidence, apart from other cases involving sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel, showed bad faith or claims brought without a reasonable legal basis.
Judge John P. Cronan did not grant or deny sanctions in this order. He scheduled the conference and identified issues Defendants should be prepared to address.
The detailed version
- Keung v. Patisseries Saines Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-03725
- John Cronan
- Mar. 22, 2023
What the order concerns
Defendants Patisseries Saines Corp. and 7 Wu Real Estate Ltd. anticipated filing a motion for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and the Court’s inherent power. Sanctions are penalties a court may impose for certain improper litigation conduct. The order does not say that Defendants had yet filed the motion or that the Court had decided whether sanctions were warranted.
Court’s directions
The Court scheduled a telephone conference for April 25, 2023, at 11:30 a.m. Counsel for all parties were directed to call the specified telephone number and access code.
The Court directed Defendants to be prepared to address why sanctions were appropriate given that dismissal had occurred at a very early stage of the litigation, before any discovery. Defendants also were directed to identify evidence showing bad faith by Plaintiff Lin Kwok Keung or that the claims were brought without a reasonable legal basis, apart from other cases in which Plaintiff’s counsel had been sanctioned.
Disposition
The order scheduled a conference concerning the anticipated sanctions motion. It did not grant, deny, or otherwise decide the sanctions request. The opinion does not provide the terms or reasons for the earlier dismissal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.