1 

16-3550-cv 

NSI Int’l v. Mustafa 

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. 

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at 

the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 

on the 8th day of June, two thousand eighteen. 

PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, 

JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 

SUSAN L. CARNEY, 

Circuit Judges. 

 

NSI INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 16-3550-cv 

MONA MUSTAFA, 

Defendant-Appellant.

 

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: Jamie S. Felsen, Milman Labuda Law 

Group, PLLC, Lake Success, NY. 

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: Mona Mustafa, pro se, Lindenhurst, IL. 

Appeal from a judgment awarding attorney’s fees of the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of New York (Joseph F. Bianco, Judge). 

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, 

ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the District Court’s September 14, 2016 judgment awarding 

attorney’s fees be and hereby is AFFIRMED. 
2 

Defendant-appellant Mona Mustafa, proceeding pro se, appeals from a September 14, 2016 

judgment awarding attorney’s fees in favor of plaintiff-appellee NSI International, Inc. We assume 

the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on 

appeal. 

Mustafa has waived any argument against the fee award by failing to challenge the award in 

her brief on appeal. Cf. Harrison v. Republic of Sudan, 838 F.3d 86, 96 (2d Cir. 2016) (“It is a wellestablished general rule that an appellate court will not consider an issue raised for the first time on 

appeal.” (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted)); LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 

92–93 (2d Cir. 1995) (holding that pro se litigant waived issues not raised in brief). In any event, we 

find no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s award of attorney’s fees. See Barfield v. New York 

City Health and Hosps. Corp., 537 F.3d 132, 151 (2d Cir. 2008) (noting that we afford “considerable 

discretion” to district courts in setting attorney’s fees). 

Any challenge to our 2015 decision affirming the underlying judgment is not properly before 

us, and the law of the case doctrine precludes us from revisiting the decision absent a compelling 

reason to do so. See Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe’s Borough Coffee, Inc., 736 F.3d 198, 208 (2d Cir. 2013). 

We have reviewed all of the arguments raised by Mustafa on appeal and find them to be 

without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the District Court’s judgment awarding attorney’s fees. 

We GRANT Mustafa’s motion to accept the appendix and DENY her motions to compel and for 

judicial notice. The text orders she requests are just that, text. There are no separate documents. The 

documents she cites as missing from our docket are internal docket entries, which do not have 

corresponding documents. We DENY NSI International, Inc.’s motion for sanctions, but hereby 

warn Mustafa that any future frivolous or vexatious appeals, motions, or other filings may result in 

sanctions, including imposition of a leave-to-file sanction that would require her to seek permission 

to file an appeal, motion, or other papers in this Court. See Sassower v. Sansverie, 885 F.2d 9, 11 (2d 

Cir. 1989). 

 FOR THE COURT: 

 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk