13-2488-cv Shiu v. New Peking Taste, Inc., et al.


### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS **FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT**



## SUMMARY ORDER

**R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT**  **. C**  **ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER**  **J ANUARY**  **1, 2007,**  **IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY F**  **EDERAL R** **ULE OF A** **PPELLATE P**  **ROCEDURE 32.1**  **AND THIS COURT ’**  **S L**  **OCAL R** **ULE 32.1.1.**  **W HEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A**  **DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT ,**  **A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE F**  **EDERAL A** **PPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE**  **( WITH THE NOTATION**  **“ SUMMARY ORDER**  **”). A**  **PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL**  **. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals**  1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 3 **on the 26 th** **day of March, two thousand fourteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,** 6 **ROSEMARY S. POOLER,** 7 **Circuit Judges ,**  8 **CHRISTINA REISS,** 9 **District Judge**
**.** ***** 10 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 12 **Man Wei Shiu, Dan Feng Lin, on behalf** 13 **of themselves and others similarly** 14 **situated,** 15 16 **Plaintiffs-Appellees ,**  17 18 **-v.- 13-2488** 19 20 **Jung & Associates Law Office P.C.**
, 21 22 **Appellant ,**  23

* Chief Judge Christina Reiss, of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation.

1**New Peking Taste Inc., DBA New Peking** 1 **Taste Restaurant, Gen Xu Shu, Xiao** 2 **Mei Wang, John Doe, Jane Doe, ABC** 3 **Corporation,** 4 5 **Defendants**
**.  6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 7 8 ** FOR APPELLANT:** ISAIAH F. SHOTKIN, New York, New 9 York. 10 11 **FOR APPELLEES:** THOMAS HSIEH CHIH KUNG (Benjamin 12 B. Xue, on the brief ), Xue & 13 Associates, P.C., New York, New 14 York. 15 16 17 Appeal from an order of the United States District 18 Court for the Eastern District of New York (Garaufis, J. ). 19 20 **UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,** 21 **AND DECREED**that the order of the district court be 22 **AFFIRMED**

. 23 24 The law firm Jung & Associates Law Office P.C. (the 25 “Jung Firm”) appeals from an order of the United States 26 District Court for the Eastern District of New York 27 (Garaufis, J. ), which imposedthe costs of several court 28 conferences jointly and severally on the Jung Firm pursuant 29 to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f). The court determined, based on 30 the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Roanne 31 Mann, that those conferences had been rendered meaningless 32 due to the dereliction of the Jung Firm (as well as other 33 attorneys purportedly from the law firm of Neiman, Wang & 34 Associates P.C.)

. We assume the parties’ familiarity with 35 the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues 36 presented for review. 37 38 We review the imposition of Rule 16(f) sanctions for 39 abuse of discretion. See Ashlodge, Ltd. v. Hauser , 163 F.3d 40 681, 683 (2d Cir. 1998), abrogated on other grounds by 41 Cunningham v. Hamilton Cnty. , 527 U.S. 198, 210 (1999). 42

** The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the caption as set forth above.

2Upon reviewing the record, we conclude that the district 1 court acted well within its discretion in imposing sanctions 2 on the Jung Firm. The Jung Firm failed to adequately 3 supervise attorney Lydia Celis, who was of counsel to the 4 Jung Firm and whose misconduct in this case is not 5 contested. 6 7 Finding no merit in the Jung Firm’s arguments, we 8 hereby **AFFIRM** the order of the district court. 9 10 FOR THE COURT: 11 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 12 13

3