Citibank, N.A. v. McPartland
- Andrew Carter
- 1:20-cv-08673
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Citibank v. McPartland, Judge Carter held McPartland in contempt and ordered a $500 weekly fine until he answered Citibank’s asset questions.
James McPartland, who was held in contempt and fined, and Citibank, N.A., which may submit documentation of fees and costs incurred in seeking the contempt sanctions.
What happened
In Citibank, N.A. v. McPartland, the court considered whether to hold McPartland in contempt for failing to answer Citibank’s questions about his assets after a judgment against him.
McPartland had not paid the judgment, answered the asset questions, followed an order requiring him to answer, responded to Citibank’s contempt motion, or appeared at the scheduled contempt hearing. He did not object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. adopted the recommendation, held McPartland in contempt, and ordered him to pay $500 per week beginning one week after the contempt order was served, until he answered the questions. The court also directed Citibank to document its reasonable fees and costs from seeking the contempt sanctions.
The detailed version
- Citibank, N.A. v. McPartland · No. 1:20-cv-08673
- Andrew Carter
- Dec. 7, 2023
Background
On March 31, 2022, the court entered a default judgment for Citibank, N.A. in the amount of $201,665.79. The opinion states that James McPartland had not paid any part of the judgment, had not answered Citibank’s post-judgment asset interrogatories, and had not complied with Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses’s order directing him to answer those interrogatories. He also did not respond to Citibank’s motion seeking contempt sanctions or appear at the June 29, 2023 hearing on that motion.
Report and Recommendation
The matter had been referred to Judge Moses for disposition of Citibank’s motion to compel. Judge Moses recommended holding McPartland in contempt under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A)(vii). Although McPartland was notified that he could object, he filed no objections. Because there were no timely objections, Judge Carter reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.
Ruling
Judge Carter adopted Judge Moses’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The court held McPartland in contempt under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(vii) and ordered a fine of $500 per week, beginning one week after the contempt order was served, until McPartland answered Citibank’s asset interrogatories, which Citibank had first served on October 26, 2022. The court also directed Citibank to submit declarations describing its reasonable fees and costs incurred in seeking contempt sanctions, supported by counsel’s time records and admissible documentation of out-of-pocket costs.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.