Andrade-Barteldes v. ASA College, Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:23-cv-00495
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Andrade-Barteldes v. Valencia: Judge Liman granted contempt motion after defendants failed to produce a required class list, setting a compliance deadline and possible daily sanctions.
The defendants were ordered to produce the class list and faced potential daily contempt sanctions. The plaintiff, the certified class of professors or instructors, and the conditionally certified collective were affected because the ruling enforced an order requiring that list.
What happened
In Andrade-Barteldes v. ASA College, Inc., the plaintiff, a certified class of professors or instructors, and a conditionally certified group of professors and instructors asked the court to hold the defendants in civil contempt. They alleged that the defendants had not complied with a December 4, 2023 order requiring production of a class list within 21 days.
The court found that the December order was clear and unambiguous, that the defendants had not produced the list, and that they had offered no evidence of a diligent effort to comply. The defendants did not contest the alleged failure and did not appear at the February 23 conference.
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the contempt motion. He ordered the defendants to comply by March 18, 2024, and provided that $1,000-per-day contempt sanctions would begin if they did not. The defendants could avoid paying sanctions that accrued if they complied by March 22, 2024.
The detailed version
- Andrade-Barteldes v. ASA College, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-00495
- Lewis Liman
- Feb. 23, 2024
Background
Ernest Andrade-Barteldes, a certified class of professors or instructors, and a conditionally certified collective of professors and instructors moved under 18 U.S.C. § 401 to hold the defendants in civil contempt. The motion alleged that the defendants had failed to comply with the court’s December 4, 2023 order, which required them to produce a class list within 21 days.
The court held a conference on February 23, 2024. Class counsel appeared, but none of the defendants appeared. The order states that the plaintiff asserted the defendants had failed to produce the list and that the defendants did not contest that assertion.
Ruling
The court granted the motion to hold the defendants in civil contempt. It found that the December 4 order was clear and unambiguous, that the proof of noncompliance was clear and convincing, and that the defendants had presented no evidence that they had diligently attempted to comply in a reasonable manner.
The defendants were directed to comply with the December 4 order by March 18, 2024. If they failed to comply by that date, contempt sanctions of $1,000 per day would begin to accrue. If they complied on or before March 22, 2024, they would be relieved of the obligation to pay sanctions that had already accrued. Any sanctions would be paid to the Clerk of Court.
The court also directed class counsel to serve the order on the defendants at the addresses discussed at the conference and to update the court if counsel became aware of efforts to comply. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion docket entry.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.