Mitchell v. Lyons Professional Services, Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4174

This appeal challenges the district court’s denial of a writ of execution on default judgments obtained by appellants against Lyons and related entities.
The motion for execution sought to reach Lyons, a successor in interest Garrison Services, and Lyons’s owner Christopher Lyons under Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a) and CPLR § 5225(b).
The district court sanctioned appellants’ counsel for repeated failures to comply with court orders, including missed hearings and failure to file required notices and materials.
The court ultimately dismissed the execution motion as a sanction, prompting amendments and a motion for reconsideration by appellants and their counsel.
The district court’s dismissal was based on a history of noncompliance spanning roughly 18 months, with warnings that further misconduct would result in dismissal.
This court vacates the dismissal and remands to allow the district court to consider the full range of available sanctions and to determine whether any sanctions should extend to the clients rather than solely to the counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sanction of dismissal was proper	Rawlins’ misconduct justified dismissal	Sanction should target counsel but not indiscriminately punish clients	Remand for further findings on client-focused sanctions; dismissal upheld only if justified with specific findings
Whether procedural safeguards were adequate	Notice and opportunity to be heard were provided through scheduling orders and reconsideration	Sanction may have overreached without explicit client-focused findings	Safeguards satisfied; notice and hearing opportunities exist but require further development on client impact
Whether lesser sanctions were adequately considered	Alternative measures (monetary sanctions, discipline, or disclosures) were not properly weighed	District court could have used lesser sanctions but may have chosen dismissal for efficiency	Remand to explicitly evaluate lesser sanctions and the Lucas factors with a hearing
Whether the court should remand for fuller consideration of sanctions	Remand is necessary to assess a full spectrum of sanctions including on counsel and potential client impact	Current record shows substantial noncompliance justifying some sanction	Remand ordered to allow explicit consideration of all sanctions and a hearing

Mickle v. Morin, 297 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2002) (inherent power to sanction for disobeying court orders; need for specificity)
Lewis v. Rawson, 564 F.3d 569 (2d Cir. 2009) (djudge’s inherent power to dismiss; warning required under certain standards)
Agiwal v. Mid Island Mortg. Corp., 555 F.3d 298 (2d Cir. 2009) (recognizing warnings and opportunity to be heard in sanctions context)
Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (notice and opportunity to be heard; escape hatch concept for sanctions)
Dodson v. Runyon, 86 F.3d 37 (2d Cir. 1996) (client impact of sanctions; lawyer-focused fault considerations)
In re Flannery, 186 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 1999) (sanctions may include monetary penalties and counsel discipline)
Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) (broad authority to impose sanctions for professional misconduct)
Commercial Cleaning Servs., L.L.C. v. Colin Serv. Sys., Inc., 271 F.3d 374 (2d Cir. 2001) (five-factor fault standard for sanctions; gravity of fault and alternatives)
Lucas v. Miles, 84 F.3d 532 (2d Cir. 1996) (five Lucas factors for assessing fault and sanction suitability)