Khudai v. Akamai Technologies, Inc.
1:20-cv-03686
S.D.N.Y.May 8, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Rawnaq Khudai, proceeding pro se, filed an employment discrimination action against Akamai Technologies and several employees.
- Plaintiff's former counsel, the Law Office of Yuriy Moshes, P.C. (LOYM), withdrew from representation and asserted a charging lien against any affirmative recovery.
- After the underlying case settled in principle, LOYM moved for enforcement of its charging lien against the settlement funds.
- LOYM also sought Rule 11 sanctions against Khudai, alleging she made numerous false statements about her former counsel, including serious, unsubstantiated accusations.
- Magistrate Judge Cott recommended granting both the lien and sanctions motions; Plaintiff was warned any failure to object would waive appellate review.
- No objections were filed, and the District Court conducted clear error review before adopting the report and recommendation in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of charging lien | Implicitly contested; did not directly address the merits after prior withdrawal | Settlement is an "affirmative recovery," supports lien | Lien enforced for LOYM |
| Appropriateness of Rule 11 sanctions | Denied wrongdoing; reaffirmed unsubstantiated allegations against former counsel | False, repeated, and inflammatory allegations warrant sanction | Sanctions granted |
| Effect of failure to object to R&R | No argument presented (failed to object) | Not argued (relied on clear procedural warning) | Waiver of objections |
| Standard for district court review | No timely objection; thereby defaulted | Proceed on clear error standard | Clear error review, adopted |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (standard for finding clear error in magistrate judge's recommendations)
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (failure to object to magistrate's report waives appellate review)
- Frank v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 298 (clear notice and failure to object operates as a waiver of judicial review)
- Mario v. P & C Food Markets, Inc., 313 F.3d 758 (timely objections required to preserve judicial review)