Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 27, 2024

Nunez Rodriguez-Jimenez Mencia v. Portes Paredes

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:23-cv-05571
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Fee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Nunez Rodriguez-Jimenez Mencia v. Portes Paredes, Judge Caproni ordered financial and translation submissions before deciding a fee award.

Who this affects

Petitioner Divanna Altagracia Nunez Rodriguez-Jimenez Mencia and Respondent Luis Cley Portes Paredes, particularly the parties’ dispute over attorneys’ fees and costs.

What happened

In Nunez Rodriguez-Jimenez Mencia v. Portes Paredes, Petitioner moved for attorneys’ fees and costs. A magistrate judge recommended awarding $19,220.50 in fees and $402 in costs, but Respondent objected and submitted additional evidence.

The evidence included financial records and translated messages. The court noted missing records for an account ending in 9473 and said the translation of the messages was not properly certified.

Judge Valerie Caproni ordered Respondent to provide additional financial records, a complete income-and-expense statement, and sworn statements by March 1, 2024. Respondent also had to submit a certified translation and sworn statement about the messages; Petitioner’s reply was due March 5, 2024. The order did not decide the final fee award.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Nunez Rodriguez-Jimenez Mencia v. Portes Paredes · No. 1:23-cv-05571
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Feb. 27, 2024

Background

Petitioner Divanna Altagracia Nunez Rodriguez-Jimenez Mencia moved for attorneys’ fees and costs on August 22, 2023. The court referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Moses, who issued a report and recommendation on January 16, 2024. The recommendation proposed awarding Petitioner $19,220.50 in attorneys’ fees and $402 in costs.

Respondent Luis Cley Portes Paredes objected to the recommendation on February 14, 2024, and submitted additional evidence. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), the district judge may consider further evidence when resolving objections.

Evidence the Court Required

Respondent submitted bank statements, tax returns, pay stubs, an affidavit about his assets, and translated screenshots of messages. The court observed that the bank statements showed transfers to and from an account ending in 9473, but Respondent had not provided records for that account. The court also noted that the English translation of the messages was not certified.

Order

The court ordered Respondent, by March 1, 2024, to provide records for the account ending in 9473 and any other accounts or assets he may own, along with a complete statement of income and expenses. He also had to submit a sworn statement under penalty of perjury confirming that the financial information was complete and accurate.

The court separately ordered Respondent to submit a certified translation of the messages and a sworn statement confirming their accuracy by the same date. Any reply from Petitioner was due March 5, 2024. This order required additional submissions; it did not state a final ruling on the recommended attorneys’ fees and costs.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.