Laba v. JBO Worldwide Supply Pty Ltd
- Katharine Parker
- 1:20-cv-03443
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Laba v. JBO Worldwide Supply, Judge Parker sought briefing and fee evidence before deciding JBO’s attorneys’ fees and sanctions motion.
JBO Worldwide Supply Pty Ltd, Remi Laba, and Laba’s counsel, because the court required further briefing and evidence before deciding JBO’s request for attorneys’ fees and sanctions.
What happened
In Laba v. JBO Worldwide Supply Pty Ltd, JBO asked for attorneys’ fees and sanctions related to its defense against Remi Laba’s contract and unjust-enrichment claims. Laba abandoned his written-contract claim during summary judgment, and the court granted summary judgment to JBO on his oral-contract and unjust-enrichment claims.
The motion relied on several legal authorities, including court rules, a statute allowing sanctions against attorneys for unreasonable litigation, and the court’s inherent powers. The court identified questions about whether those authorities allowed the requested relief, whether JBO followed required procedures, and whether the request should be treated as a request to reconsider an earlier sanctions ruling.
Judge Katharine H. Parker did not decide the fees-and-sanctions motion in this order. She ordered supplemental briefing, required JBO’s counsel to provide a detailed breakdown of certain billing time, allowed Laba and his counsel to submit declarations or testimony, and moved the hearing to June 28, 2023.
The detailed version
- Laba v. JBO Worldwide Supply Pty Ltd · No. 1:20-cv-03443
- Katharine Parker
- June 7, 2023
Background
JBO Worldwide Supply Pty Ltd, identified in the order as the defendant and counterclaim plaintiff, moved for attorneys’ fees and sanctions against Remi Laba and, under one provision, Laba’s counsel. JBO relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2), Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and the court’s inherent powers.
The motion arose from JBO’s defense of Laba’s claim involving an alleged written contract. Laba abandoned that claim at the summary-judgment stage. The court also granted summary judgment to JBO on Laba’s remaining claims for breach of an oral contract and unjust enrichment. The parties later settled all remaining claims except the fees-and-sanctions motion.
The order also refers to earlier proceedings. The court had denied reconsideration of its denial of JBO’s motion for sanctions under Rule 37(b). In another order, the court found that JBO had presented plausible allegations of a conspiracy to file multiple lawsuits to remove its officers and accomplish other purposes not properly part of lawsuits. The court also directed JBO to depose Laba about the authenticity of a written finder’s-fee agreement that JBO claimed was fraudulent.
Questions Identified by the Court
The court requested supplemental briefing on five subjects:
- Whether a statute or rule would permit an award of attorneys’ fees under Rule 54(d)(2), where the fees would otherwise be unavailable under that rule.
- Whether JBO satisfied Rule 11’s procedural requirements and whether the relief requested was proper given Laba’s abandonment of the written-contract claim and the disposition of his other claims.
- Whether JBO’s fees motion should be treated as a motion to reconsider the earlier denial of its Rule 37(b) sanctions motion, and whether JBO met the standard for reconsideration.
- Whether abandoning the written-contract claim at summary judgment prevented an award against Laba’s counsel under § 1927, which allows sanctions only against counsel.
- Whether the court had authority to sanction Laba or his counsel under its inherent powers for bringing a claim based on an allegedly fraudulent contract if the claim was abandoned at summary judgment.
Court’s Order
The court did not grant or deny the attorneys’ fees-and-sanctions motion in this order. Instead, it directed the parties to file supplemental briefs by the close of business on June 19, 2023.
The court separately ordered JBO’s counsel to file a supplemental declaration by that date. The declaration must separate time spent investigating the alleged fraudulent contract and briefing the related sanctions and attorneys’ fees motions. It must identify each timekeeper’s hours, hourly rate, experience, total hours, and total fees, and include only the relevant billing-record excerpts.
Because JBO sought sanctions against Laba’s counsel under § 1927 and against Laba and his counsel under the court’s inherent powers, the court stated that it had to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard before imposing sanctions. Laba and his counsel could submit declarations by June 19 or offer testimony instead.
The court also directed the parties to inform it by June 19 whether they wanted live testimony or preferred to rely on sworn declarations, earlier deposition testimony, and oral argument. Judge Katharine H. Parker moved the scheduled oral argument and any testimony from June 23 to June 28, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. The parties were instructed to notify the court at least three days before the hearing if they settled the motion.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.