Emilio Garcia v. Roc Nation LLC, 1:24-cv-07587

The Court scheduled an initial pretrial conference for November 6, 2024, in person, first in Courtroom 12C and later changed to Courtroom 26B, and communicated these changes in formal orders.
Counsel for the plaintiff, Ronald Zambrano, did not appear at the scheduled in-person conference but attempted to call into the Court’s dedicated conference line instead.
The orders did not authorize telephonic attendance, and Mr. Zambrano did not request an adjournment or notify the Court of his absence in advance.
The Court issued an order to show cause to Mr. Zambrano as to why he should not be sanctioned for his failure to appear as ordered.
Mr. Zambrano cited confusion about participation logistics and issues with electronic notifications as reasons for missing the conference.
Defendants appeared at the conference as scheduled, incurring attorneys’ fees due to plaintiff’s counsel’s absence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure to appear at in-person conference	Mistook participation method; believed phone was allowed	Plaintiff's counsel was not justified	Not substantially justified—sanctions appropriate
Substantial justification for nonappearance	Issues with ECF notifications prevented compliance	Counsel responsible for communications	Not substantial—counsel had notice and options
Sanction in form of fee-shifting	No claim of pecuniary hardship or unjust circumstances	Entitled to expenses for wasted time	Plaintiff’s counsel must pay defendants’ reasonable fees
Appropriateness of notice and process	Not contested; opportunity to respond	Showed noncompliance with clear orders	Court followed proper procedure before sanctioning

United States v. Seltzer, 227 F.3d 36 (2d Cir. 2000) (district courts have inherent power to sanction attorneys for violations of court orders)
Liebowitz v. Bandshell Artist Mgt., 6 F.4th 267 (2d Cir. 2021) (district courts have wide latitude in designing sanctions under Rule 16(f))
N.Y. State Ass’n for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey, 711 F.2d 1136 (2d Cir. 1983) (party seeking attorneys’ fees must submit contemporaneous time records)
Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass’n v. Cty. of Albany, 522 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2008) (district courts have discretion in determining reasonable attorneys’ fees)
Gierlinger v. Gleason, 160 F.3d 858 (2d Cir. 1998) (reasonable fees determined by prevailing market rates for comparable lawyers)
Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984) (reasonable attorneys’ fees are consistent with prevailing market rates)