McKenzie-Morris v. V.P. Records Retail Outlet, Inc.
- Clarke
- 1:22-cv-01138
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In McKenzie-Morris v. V.P. Records, Judge Clarke denied former counsel’s late request to reconsider sanctions.
Miami Entertainment Law Group and attorney Celeste McCaw, who were plaintiff’s former counsel and were subject to the earlier sanctions order; the defendants were awarded fees under that order.
What happened
In McKenzie-Morris v. V.P. Records Retail Outlet, Inc., the former lawyers for plaintiff Shauna McKenzie-Morris asked the court to reconsider an earlier order granting defendants’ motion for sanctions against them.
The court denied the request because it was filed nearly a year after the sanctions order, beyond the 14-day deadline. The court also rejected the lawyers’ claim that defendants had submitted evidence they could not access and found that they presented no other valid reason to reconsider the decision.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke denied the motion for reconsideration. The opinion states that the lawyers repeated earlier arguments, raised arguments they could have made before, and did not identify controlling law or information that the court had overlooked.
The detailed version
- McKenzie-Morris v. V.P. Records Retail Outlet, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-01138
- Clarke
- Oct. 16, 2023
Background
On October 31, 2022, Judge Woods issued an order granting defendants’ motion for sanctions against plaintiff’s former counsel, Miami Entertainment Law Group (MELG) and attorney Celeste McCaw. The court later awarded fees to defendants on July 10, 2023, and gave MELG and McCaw three months to pay the sanctions.
Nearly one year after the sanctions order, MELG and McCaw moved for reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration asks the court to revisit an earlier decision under a strict standard.
Reasons for the Decision
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke denied the motion for three reasons:
1. Untimeliness. Local Rule 6.3 required the motion to be served within 14 days after the original decision. MELG and McCaw filed their motion well after that deadline, shortly before the deadline to pay the sanctions.
2. Access to evidence. The movants argued that the court had allowed defendants to submit evidence they could not access. The court rejected that argument, explaining that it had requested native versions of fee spreadsheets and that defendants confirmed those spreadsheets contained the same information as the PDF versions filed on the docket.
3. No valid basis for reconsideration. The court found that the movants repeated old arguments and raised new arguments that could have been made earlier. They did not identify controlling decisions or information that the court had overlooked, or any other exceptional circumstance supporting reconsideration.
Disposition
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke denied MELG and McCaw’s motion for reconsideration. The opinion does not state that the motion was granted in part or dismissed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.