Summary
holding that a non-party could be sanctioned who was, inter alia, the "only person affiliated with [Defendant] to have a substantive role in this litigation . . . ."
Summary of this case from Saravia v. Royal Guard Fence Co.Opinion
No. 10-3201-cv.
September 15, 2011.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Azrack, Mag. J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York be AFFIRMED.
Michael Levine, Levine Associates, P.C., Scarsdale, NY, for Appellant.
Craig D. Mills, Buchanan, Ingersoll Rooney, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, for appellee.
PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, RICHARD C. WESLEY, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
SUMMARY ORDER
Appellant appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Azrack, Mag. J.), which imposed sanctions against Robert Drucker and RxUSA, jointly and severally, in the amount of $100,000. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.
Sanctions for fraud are warranted if it is "established by clear and convincing evidence that [Defendant] has `sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system's ability impartially to adjudicate' the action." Scholastic, Inc. v. Stouffer, 221 F.Supp.2d 425, 439 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (quoting Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989)), ajfd 81 Fed. Appx. 396, 398 (2d Cir. 2003). Falsifying evidence is sanctionable conduct. Ostano Commerzanstalt v. Telewide Sys. Inc., 794 F.2d 763, 768 (2d Cir. 1986). Submitting falsified evidence is also properly sanctionable. See Scholastic Inc., 221 F.Supp.2d at 440-441, aff'd 81 Fed.Appx. at 398.
The record in this case supports the district court's findings of fact that Appellant Drucker falsified and falsely authenticated falsified evidence and that Appellants relied upon and submitted the falsified evidence in connection with a motion for summary judgment. Appellant's actions constitute sanctionable conduct, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing sanctions in this case.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.