Leung v. Starbucks Corporation

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: February 18, 2022
• Docket: 1:20-cv-07440
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PAULINE LEUNG, Plaintiff, 20-CV-7440 (RA) v. ORDER STARBUCKS CORPORATION AND STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY, Defendants. RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge: On December 17, 2021, the Court ordered Jofran Mendoza to appear for a telephonic hearing on January 28, 2022 and show cause why he should not be held in contempt for his repeated failures to appear for a deposition in the above-captioned action. Dkt. 27. See Painewebber Inc. v. Acstar Ins. Co., 211 F.R.D. 247, 249 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (“The Court has the power under [Rule 45(g)] to impose contempt simply on the basis of failure to comply with a subpoena.”). Despite being personally served with the Court’s order to show cause, see Dkt. 30, Mr. Mendoza did not attend the hearing. Accordingly, Mr. Mendoza is warned that, absent prompt compliance with Plaintiff’s deposition subpoena, he will be subject to possible arrest, financial penalty, or other civil and criminal sanctions. See Eros Ent., Inc. v. Melody Spot, L.L.C., No. 99 CV 1157 SJ, 2005 WL 4655385, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2005) (“[C]ivil contempt may [] be punished by a conditional jail term or a remedial fine intended to compensate the party for the damages incurred as a result of the contumacious activity.”); In re Weiss, 703 F.2d 653, 661 (2d Cir. 1983) (noting that courts may “hold the contemnor in civil contempt and impose a sanction that is designed to coerce the contemnor to terminate his contumacious conduct . . . [such as] a jail term or a monetary fine”). Plaintiff is directed to serve this order on Mr. Mendoza via overnight mail and to file proof of service with the Court. SO ORDERED. Dated: February 18, 2022 “J / New York, New York ky RONNIE ABRAMS United States District Judge