Nunez Rodriguez-Jimenez Mencia v. Portes Paredes

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedFebruary 27, 2024
Docket1:23-cv-05571
StatusUnknown

This text of Nunez Rodriguez-Jimenez Mencia v. Portes Paredes (Nunez Rodriguez-Jimenez Mencia v. Portes Paredes) 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
Nunez Rodriguez-Jimenez Mencia v. Portes Paredes, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Opinion

USONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESST RDIICSTT ROIFC TN ECWOU YROTR K DATE FILED: 02/27 /2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------- X : DIVANNA ALTAGRACIA NUNEZ RODRIGUEZ- : JIMENEZ MENCIA, : : 23-CV-5571 (VEC) Petitioner, : : ORDER -against- : : LUIS CLEY PORTES PAREDES, : Respondent. : : ------------------------------------------------------------------- X VALERIE CAPRONI, United States District Judge: WHEREAS on August 22, 2023, Petitioner moved for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs, Dkt. 29; WHEREAS on August 23, 2023, the Court referred this case to Magistrate Judge Moses for the preparation of a report and recommendation (“R&R”) on the fees motion, Dkt. 35; WHEREAS on January 16, 2024, Magistrate Judge Moses entered an R&R recommending that Petitioner be granted $19,220.50 in attorneys’ fees and $402 in costs, Dkt. 42; WHEREAS on February 14, 2024, Respondent objected to the R&R and submitted new evidence, Dkt. 47; WHEREAS pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), a “district judge may . . . receive further evidence” in resolving objections; WHEREAS Respondent submitted copies of various financial records, including bank statements, tax returns, and pay stubs, Resp’t Obj. Exs. 2–4; WHEREAS Respondent submitted an affidavit stating that he does “not own any real estate, or any investments,” and has “‘a savings account which has about $100 in it currently,” Resp’t Obj. Ex. 6 § 18; WHEREAS Respondent’s bank statements indicate numerous transfers to and from an account ending in 9473, and no records of an account ending in 9473 were provided to the Court; and WHEREAS Respondent also submitted translated screenshots of messages purportedly between Petitioner and Respondent’s partner, but failed to certify the English translation, Resp’t Obj. Ex. 1; Gonzalez v. Cheesecake Factory Rests. Inc., 2023 WL 2477697, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2023) (noting that English translations of foreign-language documents must be appropriately certified) (collecting cases). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, not later than Friday, March 1, 2024, Respondent must submit copies of bank records for the account ending in 9473, as well as records for any other accounts or assets he may own, and a complete statement of expenses and income. Respondent must also submit a sworn statement under penalty of perjury affirming that his submissions represent a complete and accurate picture of his finances. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, not later than Friday, March 1, 2024, Respondent must submit a certified translation of the messages in Exhibit 1 to the Objection and a sworn statement under penalty of perjury affirming the accuracy of those messages. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply from Petitioner must be filed by Tuesday, March 5, 2024. SO ORDERED. \ (G Date: February 27, 2024 VALERIECAPRONE New York, NY United States District Judge

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Nunez Rodriguez-Jimenez Mencia v. Portes Paredes, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nunez-rodriguez-jimenez-mencia-v-portes-paredes-nysd-2024.