Khudai v. Akamai Technologies, Inc.
- Rearden
- 1:20-cv-03686
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Khudai v. Akamai Technologies, Judge Rearden adopted the recommendation granting former counsel’s fee and sanctions motions and closed the case.
Rawnaq Khudai and her former counsel, the Law Office of Yuriy Moshes, P.C.; the order also ended the pending case against Akamai Technologies and several employees.
What happened
In Khudai v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., Rawnaq Khudai’s former lawyers asked the court to enforce a legal claim to fees from the case’s settlement and to impose penalties for statements Khudai made about them. Khudai represented herself in the case.
A magistrate judge recommended granting both requests. Khudai was warned that failing to object within the deadline would give up further review, but she filed no objections and did not request more time.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden reviewed the recommendation, found no clear error, and adopted it in full. The court directed the clerk to end all pending motions and close the case.
The detailed version
- Khudai v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-03686
- Rearden
- May 8, 2024
Background
Rawnaq Khudai, acting without a lawyer, brought an employment-discrimination action against Akamai Technologies and several employees. Her former counsel, the Law Office of Yuriy Moshes, P.C. (LOYM), later moved for two types of relief: attorneys’ fees based on a charging lien under Section 475 of the New York Judiciary Law, and sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
A charging lien is a lawyer’s claimed right to receive payment from a client’s recovery in the case. LOYM argued that a settlement reached in principle in the underlying action qualified as a recovery to which its lien could attach. LOYM also argued that sanctions were warranted because Khudai had made numerous allegedly false allegations about the firm in filings and letters, including an allegation that counsel may have drugged her to obtain her signature on the settlement agreement.
Report and recommendation
Magistrate Judge James L. Cott issued a report and recommendation on November 1, 2023, recommending that the court grant LOYM’s motions for fees based on the charging lien and for sanctions. The report explained that Khudai could object within the specified time. It warned that failing to object would waive objections and prevent appellate review.
Khudai filed no objections by the November 18, 2023 deadline and did not seek an extension. Because there were no timely objections, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error. Clear-error review asks whether the record leaves the court with a firm conviction that a mistake was made.
Ruling
The court found that Khudai had waived further judicial review by failing to object after receiving the required warning. The court nevertheless reviewed the report and recommendation and found no clear error, concluding that it was well reasoned and supported by the facts and law.
The court adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the case, and to mail Khudai a copy of the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.