Abraham v. Leigh

Background

The case had one remaining counterclaim brought by Abby Leigh against Robyn Abraham. The court had previously granted summary judgment for Leigh on the central breach-of-contract claim. The remaining counterclaim concerned a contract involving the musical Man of La Mancha. Leigh alleged that Abraham had acted as a legal representative when Mitch Leigh entered into the contract and had failed to make required disclosures about conflicts of interest or advise him about obtaining independent legal advice.

The court had spent more than two years trying to hold a one-day trial on the counterclaim. On May 1, 2023, Abraham sought another trial adjournment, stating that she had serious Covid-related complications and needed medical care in Los Angeles. The court converted the next day’s trial to a virtual proceeding and adjusted its start time to accommodate her. When the trial began, Abraham was not available to participate and later stated that she was in a California hospital and could not use the court’s video link or participate because she had received pain medication.

The court issued an order to show cause requiring Abraham to substantiate 15 factual statements made before and during the trial. The requested support concerned her hospitalization and treatment, her Covid-19 diagnosis and condition, and her preparations to travel to New York and attend the trial. The order warned that failure to provide adequate support could lead to default judgment for Leigh.

Failure to Substantiate the Statements

The court gave Abraham additional time to respond. She submitted a response, exhibits, and a reply. The court found that she provided meaningful support for only one point: that a friend drove her to Cedars-Sinai Hospital at approximately 4:00 a.m. on May 2, 2023.

The court found that Abraham did not adequately support her other statements about why she went to the hospital, what treatment she received, or why she could not participate in the virtual trial. It criticized her failure to produce contemporaneous hospital records and rejected her explanation that the records were unavailable because of privacy laws. The court also found that her statement that she had received pain medication was false. Abraham later said that she had refused recommended intravenous medication and that technical problems, rather than medication, prevented her participation. The court rejected that explanation.

Regarding Covid-19, the court gave Abraham the benefit of the doubt that she had received a positive test result on April 29, 2023. It nevertheless found that she did not substantiate the severity of her symptoms, her claimed high fever, the timing and circumstances of the test, or the effect of her condition on her ability to participate remotely. The court also found that the flight document she submitted did not reliably establish that she had taken the claimed flight to Los Angeles.

The court likewise rejected the flight and hotel confirmations submitted to show that Abraham had prepared to attend trial in New York. It found discrepancies suggesting that the documents had been altered and noted that Abraham did not explain or authenticate them.

Sanctions and Default Judgment

The court considered its inherent power to sanction litigation misconduct, including fraud on the court. It explained that default judgment is an exceptionally severe sanction and is appropriate only in extreme circumstances, including when a party engages in intentional bad faith, prejudices the opposing party, repeatedly misbehaves, fails to correct the misconduct, and is likely to continue it.

The court found that Abraham’s conduct met that standard. It relied on what it described as a years-long pattern of delays, false statements, fabricated documents, and obstruction. The court concluded that earlier, lesser sanctions had not stopped the misconduct, that Leigh had been prejudiced, and that further trial delays were likely.

The court therefore entered default judgment against Abraham on Leigh’s counterclaim. After reviewing the counterclaim’s allegations under the governing New York professional-conduct rules, the court accepted those well-pleaded allegations as true for purposes of default and found that they provided a proper basis for relief. The court ruled that the contract was unenforceable as a matter of law.

Fees and Disposition

The court also held that Leigh could recover attorneys’ fees incurred in responding to Abraham’s deficient response to the order to show cause. It relied on the court’s inherent authority to award fees for bad-faith litigation conduct and on 28 U.S.C. § 1927, which permits fees and costs against an attorney who unreasonably and vexatiously multiplies proceedings.

The clerk was directed to enter judgment for Leigh on the counterclaim and close the case. Leigh was directed to submit the opening filing on her fee request by November 6, 2023; Abraham could oppose that request by November 27, 2023. The order did not set the final amount of fees.