Rodriguez v. New Generation Hardware Store Corp.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:22-cv-04422
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Rodriguez v. New Generation, Judge Liman granted contempt sanctions against Reyes, requiring subpoena compliance and imposing escalating weekday payments.
Kevin Reyes was held in civil contempt and became subject to escalating monetary sanctions until he complied with the Court’s order to answer the information subpoena. New Generation Hardware Store Corp. was also named in the contempt motion, but the opinion specifies the monetary sanctions against Reyes.
What happened
In Rodriguez v. New Generation Hardware Store Corp., Pablo Ramon Rodriguez sought contempt sanctions because Kevin Reyes did not answer a subpoena seeking information to collect a money judgment or follow the Court’s order requiring him to respond.
The Court found that its order was clear, that Reyes’s failure to comply was proven by clear and convincing evidence, and that there was no evidence he had reasonably tried to comply. The Court ordered Reyes to pay $500 for each weekday of continued noncompliance beginning April 12, 2024, increasing to $1,000 per weekday if he had not complied by April 19, 2024.
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the motion for contempt sanctions. The sanctions would continue until Reyes complied with the Court’s order; the Court did not issue an arrest warrant, although Rodriguez could later seek one if noncompliance continued through May 12, 2024.
The detailed version
- Rodriguez v. New Generation Hardware Store Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-04422
- Lewis Liman
- Apr. 2, 2024
Background
Pablo Ramon Rodriguez brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. New Generation Hardware Store Corp. and Kevin Reyes did not appear in the case. On February 3, 2023, the Court entered a default judgment for Rodriguez totaling $567,406.80 for back wages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and prejudgment interest. The defendants did not pay the judgment.
Rodriguez later served Reyes with an information subpoena seeking information relevant to collecting the judgment. The Court’s January 22, 2024 order required Reyes to respond and warned that failure to do so could lead to contempt sanctions. Rodriguez served that order, but Reyes did not respond. Rodriguez moved for contempt. Neither defendant appeared at the contempt hearings.
Civil Contempt Finding
The Court reaffirmed its earlier finding that Rodriguez had established the requirements for civil contempt. The January 22 order was clear and unambiguous, the evidence of Reyes’s noncompliance was clear and convincing, and there was no evidence that Reyes had made a reasonable, diligent effort to comply. The Court therefore entered an order of civil contempt.
Civil contempt sanctions are intended to secure future compliance with a court order and compensate an injured party, rather than punish the person held in contempt. A person held in civil contempt may end the contempt by complying with the required order.
Sanctions and Other Orders
The Court ordered Reyes to pay $500 for every weekday he remained out of compliance, beginning April 12, 2024. The payments were to be made weekly to the Clerk of Court. If Reyes did not comply by April 19, 2024, the sanction would increase to $1,000 for each weekday. The sanctions would continue until Reyes complied with the January 22 order.
The Court scheduled a hearing for April 24, 2024, to consider whether the sanctions should be increased. The Court stated that Reyes was entitled to counsel at that hearing and any later contempt hearings. It did not issue an arrest warrant and stated that it would not consider issuing one at the April 24 hearing. If Reyes continued not to comply through May 12, 2024, Rodriguez could renew the request and specifically seek a warrant to bring Reyes to future hearings.
The Court also ordered Rodriguez to serve the contempt order on Reyes by specified delivery methods and file proof of service. The Court granted the motion for contempt sanctions and directed the Clerk to close the motion docket entry.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.