Medina v. Buther

• Decision Date: 12 September 2019
• Docket Number: 15-cv-1955(LAP)
• Parties: ANTHONY MEDINA, Plaintiff, v. LUCY BUTHER, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

ANTHONY MEDINA, Plaintiff, v. LUCY BUTHER, et al., Defendants.

15-cv-1955(LAP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

September 12, 2019

OPINION AND ORDER

LORETTA A. PRESKA, Senior United States District Judge:

Before the Court is Plaintiff Anthony Medina's ("Plaintiff," "Medina" or "Mr. Medina") Notice of Motion for an Order for Fees and Damages Related to Contempt (the "Fee Motion"), dated Feb. 27, 2019 [dkt. no. 409], for entry of an order for attorney's fees, costs, and damages awarded pursuant to the Court's Opinion and Order (the "2019 Order"), dated Feb. 13, 2019 [dkt. no. 407], finding Defendant¹ in civil contempt forits willful noncompliance with the effective pain treatment portion of the Court's Memorandum and Order (the "2017 Order"),dated Feb. 3, 2017 [dkt. no. 159]. Plaintiff's Fee Motion [dkt. no. 409] is granted to the extent stated below.

I. BACKGROUND

This action began on March 12, 2015, when Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging, among other things, violations of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983"). (See Complaint, dated Mar. 12, 2015 [dkt. no. 2], at 1.) The Court assumes familiarity with the underlying facts relevant to resolving the instant motion, which are set forth in the 2017 Order and 2019 Order.

In short, on February 3, 2017, the Court issued the 2017 Order, granting "Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction [dkt. no. 43] pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65" and "order[ing] Defendant[ ], during the pendency of this action:"

1) to reinstate Plaintiff's prescription of Tramadol/Ultram, or an alternate, but equally effective, pain medication immediately;

2) to dim or turn off Plaintiff's overhead light in accordance with past accepted requests for the reasonable accommodation regardless of his housing facility and unit; and, when a housing unit and/or facility has both cells facing windows and cells not facing windows, to house Plaintiff in a cell which does not face a window or to tint the window; [and]

3) to provide Plaintiff with a closed circuit television ("CCTV") and/or documents in 32 font print before and during any disciplinary hearing and ensure that he can use them.

(2017 Order at 54.)

On June 21, 2018, Plaintiff moved for a finding of civil contempt against Defendant for Defendant's failure to abide by the 2017 Order. (See Civil Contempt Motion at 1.) Specifically, Plaintiff requested the following relief:

a) Monetary damages to Plaintiff for his unnecessary pain and suffering;

b) Coercive fines to compel future obedience with [the 2017 Order];

c) Plaintiff's health care to be transferred to an independent pain management specialist for the duration of the instant litigation; [and]

d) Plaintiff's reasonable attorney['s] fees and costs for the prosecution of this contempt motion and proceeding.

(Id. at 2.)

On February 13, 2019, the Court issued the 2019 Order, granting the portion of Plaintiff's Civil Contempt Motion concerning Defendant's "fail[ure] to comply with the effective pain treatment portion of the 2017 Order," denying "[t]he portions of the Civil Contempt Motion addressed to tinted windows," and noting that "the portion addressed to CCTV use was withdrawn" by Plaintiff. (2019 Order at 90, 92.)

The Court found that coercive sanctions were no longer appropriate because Plaintiff had already been released from custody. (Id. at 89.) However, "[i]n order to remedy the non-compliance," the Court found Plaintiff was entitled to an award of compensatory damages "for the pain and other discomfort hesuffered as a result of the non-compliance." (Id. at 92.) The Court also found that Plaintiff's counsel, Amy Jane Agnew, Esq., was entitled to "the fees and costs of prosecuting the Civil Contempt Motion." (Id.) The Court instructed "[c]ounsel [to] confer as to the amount of damages to be awarded for pain and suffering and the amount of attorney's fees and costs to be awarded and [to] inform the Court by letter no later than February 27, 2019 as to the status of such discussions." (Id.)

On February 27, 2019, Plaintiff moved for entry of an order for attorney's fees, costs, and damages awarded pursuant to the 2019 Order. (Fee Motion at 1.) Specifically, Plaintiff seeks $478,365 in attorney's fees,² $59,763.82 in costs, (Agnew Reply Decl. ¶ 50), and $150,000 "in compensatory damages for his pain,suffering and garden variety emotional distress," (Pl. Mem. at 13).³

On June 14, 2019, Defendant's filed its opposition. (Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees, Costs and Damages ("Def. Opp."), dated June 14, 2019 [dkt. no. 425].) On June 28, 2019, Plaintiff filed his reply. (Pl. Reply.) On July 2, 2019, Defendant requested leave to file a sur-reply. (Letter Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply or to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees, Costs and Compensatory Damages ("Def. Sur-Reply Request"), dated July 2, 2019 [dkt. no. 431].) On July 3, 2019, the Court granted Defendant's request. (Order ("Sur-Reply Order"), datedJuly 3, 2019 [dkt. no. 433].) On July 19, 2019, Defendant filed its sur-reply. (Defendants' Sur-Reply Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees, Costs and Damages ("Def. Sur-Reply"), dated July 19, 2019 [dkt. no. 437].) This Order follows.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

As the Court of Appeals held in Weitzman v. Stein, "the sanctions for civil contempt serve two purposes: to coerce future compliance and to remedy any harm past noncompliance caused the other party." 98 F.3d 717, 719 (2d Cir. 1996) (citing United States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258, 302-04 (1947)). Put simply, "[c]ivil contempt sanctions must be remedial and compensatory rather than punitive." Broker Genius Inc. v. Seat Scouts LLC, No. 17-Cv-8627(SHS), 2019 WL 2462333, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 13, 2019) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

"When a contempt sanction is compensatory, some proof of loss must be present and the sanction should correspond at least in some degree with the amount of damages." Mattina v. Saigon Grill Gourmet Rest., Inc., No. 08 Civ. 3332(DC), 2009 WL 323507, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Rick v. Buchansky, No. 82 Civ. 3906(RJW), 2001 WL 936293, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2001) ("As to the remedial nature of sanctions, 'once the plaintiff hasproved that he has suffered harm because of a violation of the terms of an injunction, compensatory damages are appropriate.'" (quoting Vuitton et Fils S.A. v. Carousel Handbags, 592 F.2d 126, 130 (2d Cir. 1979))). "The Court has broad discretion to design a remedy that will bring about compliance." Mattina, 2009 WL 323507, at *8. "Because the object is to 'make reparation to the injured party and restore the parties to the position they would have held had the injunction been obeyed[,'] a district court 'is not free to exercise its discretion and withhold an order in civil contempt awarding damages, to the extent they are established.'" Cardell Fin. Corp. v. Suchodolski Assocs., Inc., No. 09 Civ. 6148 (VM) (MHD), 2012 WL 12932049, at *61 (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2012), report and recommendation adopted, 896 F. Supp. 2d 320 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (quoting Vuitton et Fils S.A., 592 F.2d at 130).

"Compensatory sanctions may include an award of attorneys' fees and costs if the Court finds willful violation." Jolen, Inc. v. Kundan Rice Mills, Ltd., No. 19-CV-1296(PKC), 2019 WL 2949988, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 9, 2019). But see Jacobs v. Citibank, N.A., 318 F. App'x 3, 5 n.3 (2d Cir. 2008) (noting that whether willfulness or bad faith is required to order attorney fees as a sanction for violating a court order "remain[s] an open one in our Circuit"). The Court of Appeals has held that "while willfulness may not necessarily be aprerequisite to an award of fees and costs, a finding of willfulness strongly supports granting them." Weitzman, 98 F.3d at 719. Indeed, "'a district court, having found willful contempt, would need to articulate persuasive grounds for any denial of compensation' of such costs to 'the victim of contempt." Skyline Steel, LLC v. PilePro, LLC, No. 13-CV-8171(JMF), 2018 WL 6025863, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2018) (quoting Weitzman, 98 F.3d at 719); see also N.Y. State Nat'l Org. for Women v. Terry, 952 F. Supp. 1033, 1043 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) ("It is well settled in this Circuit that costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, may be awarded to the party who prosecutes a contempt motion as an appropriate compensatory sanction for contumacious behavior.").

Here, in addition to finding Plaintiff entitled to compensatory damages, the Court also authorized an award of attorney's fees and costs in the 2019 Order. (2019 Order at 92.) The Court found Defendant's conduct "had been willful, thus justifying the award." Fendi Adele S.R.L. v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp., 642 F. Supp. 2d 276, 298 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). (See, e.g., 2019 Order at 53 (finding Defendant "willfully attempted to interfere with Mr. Medina's effective pain treatment").)

III. DISCUSSION

A. Application of the PLRA

Defendant argues that the Prison Reform Litigation Act ("PLRA") caps Plaintiff's application for attorney's fees.⁴ (Def. Opp. at 3.) Plaintiff, of course, disagrees. (Pl. Mem. at 2-3; Pl. Reply at 1.)

"In construing [the PLRA], we begin, as we must, with the text." Shepherd v. Goord, 662 F.3d 603, 606 (2d Cir. 2011) (citing Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754, 760 (2011)); see also BedRoc Ltd., LLC v. United States, 541 U.S. 176, 183 (2004) ("[A court's statutory interpretation] inquiry begins with the statutory text, and ends there as well if the text is unambiguous."). The relevant PLRA provision is 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(3), which states that "[n]o award of attorney's fees in [a Section 1983 litigation] shall be based on an hourly rate greater than 150 percent of the hourly rate established . . . for payment of court-appointe...