Opinion ID: 4576515
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Leave-to-File Sanction

Text: Finally, we respectfully disagree with the district court’s sua sponte decision to impose a leave-to-file sanction on Ms. Malcolm. We review the imposition of such a sanction for abuse of discretion. Gollomp v. Spitzer, 568 F.3d 355, 368 (2d Cir. 2009). A district court may impose a leave-to-file sanction against “litigants who abuse the judicial process,” such as by filing “repetitive and frivolous suits.” Shafii v. Brit. Airways, PLC, 83 F.3d 566, 571 (2d Cir. 1996). Before doing so, however, a court must give notice and opportunity to be heard. See Moates v. Barkley, 147 F.3d 207, 208 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam). We share the district court’s concern with Ms. Malcolm’s history of duplicative and harassing litigation, a history which has already forced one other district court to impose a similar sanction. We note, however, that this action (along with Malcolm II and Malcolm III) are the first lawsuits against the current set of defendants. At the very least, Ms. Malcolm was entitled to an opportunity to be heard before a sanction was imposed. See Moates, 147 F.3d at 209. We therefore vacate the leave-to-file sanction pending such a hearing by that survive here with any that survive the pending appeals in Malcolm II and Malcolm III. See Curtis v. Citibank, N.A., 226 F.3d 133, 138 (2d Cir. 2000). 4 Because Ms. Malcolm may bring her Title VII and ADEA claims in federal court only if she has exhausted her remedies with the EEOC, the district court on remand should take stock of any right-to-sue letters that have been issued by the EEOC during the pendency of this proceeding. See Legnani v. Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane, S.P.A., 274 F.3d 683, 686 (2d Cir. 2001). 7 the district court. We have considered all of the parties’ remaining arguments and find in them no reason to disturb the conclusions above. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment in part, VACATE in part, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this order. The panel retains jurisdiction as noted above. FOR THE COURT: Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court 8