Lopez v. Thermo Tech Mechanical Inc.
- Laura Swain
- 1:20-cv-09113
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Lopez v. Thermo Tech Mechanical Inc., Magistrate Judge Moses set class-certification deadlines and ordered defendants and counsel to pay a $25 sanction.
Juan Lopez, the defendants, their counsel, and the court clerk. The order set deadlines for Lopez and the defendants concerning class-certification briefing and required the defendants and their counsel to pay $25 to the Clerk of Court.
What happened
In Lopez v. Thermo Tech Mechanical Inc., Juan Lopez asked the court to set deadlines for his class-certification motion and sanction the defendants for not timely paying $500 ordered in an earlier discovery-related order.
The court set January 5, 2024, for defendants to oppose the class-certification motion and January 19, 2024, for Lopez to reply. It also ordered defendants and their counsel to pay $25 to the court clerk within 30 days because they did not timely comply with the earlier $500 payment order.
Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses explained that the payment deadline was clear and that defendants had not shown they were unable to comply. The order addressed scheduling and sanctions; it did not decide whether the class should be certified.
The detailed version
- Lopez v. Thermo Tech Mechanical Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-09113
- Laura Swain
- Dec. 7, 2023
Background
Juan Lopez asked the court to do two things: set a briefing schedule for his class-certification motion and sanction the defendants for failing to pay him $500 by November 27, 2023. The $500 payment had been ordered in an October 26, 2023 order after a conference concerning Lopez's request to compel discovery. That order required defendants and their counsel to pay the $500 as reimbursement for reasonable expenses Lopez incurred in making the discovery request.
The October order also required Lopez to file any class-certification motion by December 1, 2023, and directed the parties to propose a briefing schedule. Defendants filed a response to Lopez's December 1 letter. Lopez did not file a reply.
Rulings
The court ordered defendants to file their opposition to the class-certification motion by January 5, 2024. It ordered Lopez to file his reply by January 19, 2024.
For the sanctions request, the court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f), which allows sanctions when a party or attorney fails to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order. The court stated that a violation of a pretrial order can support a sanction without a finding of bad faith, and that noncompliance is considered willful when the order was clear, the party understood it, and circumstances beyond the party's control did not prevent compliance.
The court rejected defendants' counsel's explanation that Lopez's counsel had not provided mailing or payment instructions until the morning of December 1. The court noted that Lopez's letters listed his counsel's mailing address and that defendants' counsel did not explain when payment instructions had been requested. Because the earlier order clearly required payment by November 27, and defendants' counsel did not dispute the failure to comply or show that compliance was impossible, the court ordered defendants and their counsel to pay a $25 sanction to the Clerk of Court within 30 days.
Effect of the Order
The order established deadlines for briefing the class-certification motion and imposed a $25 payment obligation on defendants and their counsel. It did not rule on the merits of class certification or otherwise resolve the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.