13-2488-cv

Shiu v. New Peking Taste, Inc., et al.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED

ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE

PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A

DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX 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.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United

3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,

on the 26th 4 day of March, two thousand fourteen.

5

6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,

7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,

8 Circuit Judges,

9 CHRISTINA REISS,

District Judge.* 10

11

12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

13 Man Wei Shiu, Dan Feng Lin, on behalf

14 of themselves and others similarly

15 situated, 

16

17 Plaintiffs-Appellees,

18

19 -v.- 13-2488

20

21 Jung & Associates Law Office P.C., 

22

23 Appellant,

* Chief Judge Christina Reiss, of the United States

District Court for the District of Vermont, sitting by

designation.

1
1 New Peking Taste Inc., DBA New Peking

2 Taste Restaurant, Gen Xu Shu, Xiao

3 Mei Wang, John Doe, Jane Doe, ABC

4 Corporation,

5

Defendants.** 6

7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

8

9 FOR APPELLANT: ISAIAH F. SHOTKIN, New York, New

10 York.

11

12 FOR APPELLEES: THOMAS HSIEH CHIH KUNG (Benjamin

13 B. Xue, on the brief), Xue &

14 Associates, P.C., New York, New

15 York.

16

17

18 Appeal from an order of the United States District

19 Court for the Eastern District of New York (Garaufis, J.).

20

21 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

22 AND DECREED that the order of the district court be

23 AFFIRMED. 

24

25 The law firm Jung & Associates Law Office P.C. (the

26 “Jung Firm”) appeals from an order of the United States

27 District Court for the Eastern District of New York

28 (Garaufis, J.), which imposed the costs of several court

29 conferences jointly and severally on the Jung Firm pursuant

30 to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f). The court determined, based on

31 the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Roanne

32 Mann, that those conferences had been rendered meaningless

33 due to the dereliction of the Jung Firm (as well as other

34 attorneys purportedly from the law firm of Neiman, Wang &

35 Associates P.C.). We assume the parties’ familiarity with

36 the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues

37 presented for review.

38

39 We review the imposition of Rule 16(f) sanctions for

40 abuse of discretion. See Ashlodge, Ltd. v. Hauser, 163 F.3d

41 681, 683 (2d Cir. 1998), abrogated on other grounds by

42 Cunningham v. Hamilton Cnty., 527 U.S. 198, 210 (1999). 

** The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the

caption as set forth above.

2
1 Upon reviewing the record, we conclude that the district

2 court acted well within its discretion in imposing sanctions

3 on the Jung Firm. The Jung Firm failed to adequately

4 supervise attorney Lydia Celis, who was of counsel to the

5 Jung Firm and whose misconduct in this case is not

6 contested. 

7

8 Finding no merit in the Jung Firm’s arguments, we

9 hereby AFFIRM the order of the district court.

10

11 FOR THE COURT:

12 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK

13

3