Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York

S.D. New York

Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York

DecidedAugust 6, 2024

Docket1:22-cv-01585

StatusUnknown

This text of Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: nnnnn □□□ nn nnnne ancnnnn nnnan nnmnnnnnncomnnn naan K DATE FILED: 08/06/2024 LORI GARDNER-ALFRED AND JEANETTE DIAZ, □ : Plaintiffs, : : 22-cv-1585 (LJL) -v- : : ORDER FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK, : Defendant. : we eee KX LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge: On May 17, 2023, the Court issued an order and opinion granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s motion for sanctions. Dkt. No. 149. On July 13, 2024, after reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs. Dkt. No. 173 (the “Order”). The Court held that “Defendant is entitled to $53,808 in attorneys’ fees and costs” and that “$2,400 of those fees shall be paid by Plaintiffs’ counsel without offset to Plaintiffs.” Jd. at 2. On July 29, 2024, Defendant requested that the Court clarify that the Order constitutes a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a)(3). Dkt. No. 199. Plaintiffs’ letter dated August 5, 2024 does not dispute that the Order is an enforceable judgment. Dkt. No. 202; see also Mason Tenders Dist. Council of Greater N_Y. v. Phase Constr. Servs., Inc., 2018 WL 4682012, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2018) (holding that awards of attorneys’ fees arising from sanctions are one “type of judgment for which a separate judgment document is not required” (citing Perez v. AC Roosevelt Food Corp., 744 F.3d 39, 41 (2d Cir. 2013))).

The Court therefore confirms that the Order constitutes a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a)(3) and denies Defendant’s alternative request for a separate judgment against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel. Plaintiffs’ letter requests that the Court stay proceedings to execute on the judgment. Dkt. No. 202. That request presupposes (correctly) that the Order constitutes an enforceable judgment. The Court has authority under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62 to stay proceedings to enforce a judgment by providing a bond or other security. Fed. R. Civ. P. 62. Defendants shall have until August 9, 2024 to respond to Plaintiffs’ request.

SO ORDERED. □ Dated: August 6, 2024 ee ME a. □□ New York, New York LEWIS J. LIMAN United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: nnnnn □□□ nn nnnne ancnnnn nnnan nnmnnnnnncomnnn naan K DATE FILED: 08/06/2024 LORI GARDNER-ALFRED AND JEANETTE DIAZ, □ : Plaintiffs, : : 22-cv-1585 (LJL) -v- : : ORDER FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK, : Defendant. : we eee KX LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge: On May 17, 2023, the Court issued an order and opinion granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s motion for sanctions. Dkt. No. 149. On July 13, 2024, after reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs. Dkt. No. 173 (the “Order”). The Court held that “Defendant is entitled to $53,808 in attorneys’ fees and costs” and that “$2,400 of those fees shall be paid by Plaintiffs’ counsel without offset to Plaintiffs.” Jd. at 2. On July 29, 2024, Defendant requested that the Court clarify that the Order constitutes a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a)(3). Dkt. No. 199. Plaintiffs’ letter dated August 5, 2024 does not dispute that the Order is an enforceable judgment. Dkt. No. 202; see also Mason Tenders Dist. Council of Greater N_Y. v. Phase Constr. Servs., Inc., 2018 WL 4682012, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2018) (holding that awards of attorneys’ fees arising from sanctions are one “type of judgment for which a separate judgment document is not required” (citing Perez v. AC Roosevelt Food Corp., 744 F.3d 39, 41 (2d Cir. 2013))).

The Court therefore confirms that the Order constitutes a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a)(3) and denies Defendant’s alternative request for a separate judgment against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel. Plaintiffs’ letter requests that the Court stay proceedings to execute on the judgment. Dkt. No. 202. That request presupposes (correctly) that the Order constitutes an enforceable judgment. The Court has authority under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62 to stay proceedings to enforce a judgment by providing a bond or other security. Fed. R. Civ. P. 62. Defendants shall have until August 9, 2024 to respond to Plaintiffs’ request.

SO ORDERED. □ Dated: August 6, 2024 ee ME a. □□ New York, New York LEWIS J. LIMAN United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gardner-alfred-v-federal-reserve-bank-of-new-york-nysd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack