Esposito v. Suffolk Cnty. Cmty. College ( 2023 )

21-521-cv
Esposito v. Suffolk Cnty. Cmty. College, 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 ASUMMARY ORDER@). A PARTY CITING TO 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 for the Second Circuit,
2 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
3 New York, on the 17th day of January, two thousand twenty-three.
4
5 PRESENT:
6 GUIDO CALABRESI,
7 DENNY CHIN,
8 JOSEPH F. BIANCO,
9 Circuit Judges.
10 _____________________________________
11
12 Frances C. Esposito,
13
14 Plaintiff-Appellant,
15
16 v. 21-521-cv
17
18 Suffolk County Community College, Nancy Gerli,
19 Diane Bosco, Jeffrey Tempera,
20
21 Defendants-Appellees.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: ROBERT G. LEINO (Frances C. Esposito, pro
25 se, Ronkonkoma, NY, on the brief), New
26 York, NY.
27
28 FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: DANA L. KOBOS, Assistant County Attorney,
29 for Dennis M. Cohen, Suffolk County
30 Attorney, Hauppauge, NY.
31
1 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
2 York (Brown, J.).
3 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
4 DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
5 Plaintiff-appellant Frances Esposito appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing
6 her complaint as a sanction for her forgery of medical evidence, and requiring Esposito to pay
7 sanctions in the amount of $5,000.00. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts,
8 the procedural history, and the issues on appeal, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our
9 decision to affirm.
10 In August 2016, Esposito commenced this litigation against defendants-appellees Suffolk
11 County Community College and three of its employees (collectively, “SCCC”) for employment
12 discrimination based on disability. Following extensive discovery, SCCC uncovered allegedly
13 forged documents. SCCC subsequently moved both to dismiss and for sanctions, arguing that
14 Esposito perpetrated a fraud on the court by forging letters from her doctors to support her claim.
15 On May 4, 2019, District Judge Arthur J. Spatt issued a decision denying the SCCC’s motion, in
16 part, and reserving decision as to the authenticity of the letters allegedly written by two of
17 Esposito’s treating physicians, Dr. Michael Campo and Dr. Gary DiCanio. Judge Spatt referred
18 the matter to Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay for an evidentiary hearing regarding the letters’
19 authenticity. On May 22 and May 30, 2019, Magistrate Judge Lindsay held an evidentiary hearing,
20 during which she found that the documents attributed to Dr. Campo had been forged. She referred
21 her findings to Judge Spatt to review the record de novo and to decide what, if any, action should
22 be taken. On July 26, 2019, after conducting a de novo review of the evidence and testimony
2
1 presented at the evidentiary hearing, Judge Spatt concurred with Magistrate Judge Lindsay’s
2 findings in their entirety. Judge Spatt then imposed a $5,000 sanction and awarded attorneys’ fees
3 and costs to SCCC, but declined to dismiss the action. On August 23, 2019, SCCC moved for
4 more than $80,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs. On November 8, 2019, Judge Spatt recused himself
5 from the case, and on January 29, 2020, the matter was reassigned to District Judge Gary R. Brown.
6 In response to SCCC’s motion for fees and costs Esposito cross-moved to vacate the monetary
7 sanctions. After reviewing the submissions of the parties and conducting his own de novo review
8 of the evidentiary hearing transcript and documents, Judge Brown denied SCCC’s motion for
9 imposition of attorneys’ fees and costs, granted Esposito’s motion in part (by vacating the fee
10 award based on her inability to pay, but ordering her to pay the $5,000 sanction), and dismissed
11 the action as a further sanction for Esposito’s misconduct. This appeal followed.
12 We review a sanctions order, including dismissal, for abuse of discretion; we review the
13 underlying factual findings for clear error. Fishoff v. Coty Inc., 634 F.3d 647, 654 (2d Cir. 2011);
14 Agiwal v. Mid Island Mortg. Corp., 555 F.3d 298, 302 (2d Cir. 2009) (per curiam). “Under the
15 clear error standard, we ‘may not reverse [a finding] even though convinced that had [we] been
16 sitting as the trier of fact, [we] would have weighed the evidence differently.’” Mobil Shipping &
17 Transp. Co. v. Wonsild Liquid Carriers Ltd., 190 F.3d 64, 67 (2d Cir. 1999) (alterations in original)
18 (quoting Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985)). “Rather, a finding is clearly
19 erroneous only if ‘although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire
20 evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” Id. at
21 67–68 (quoting Anderson, 470 U.S. at 573).
22
3
1 Esposito argues that the district court’s findings that she forged the documents at issue
2 were clearly erroneous, and that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing her claims as
3 a sanction for the forgeries. We find these arguments unpersuasive.
4 First, with respect to the district court’s findings that she forged and/or fabricated
5 documents, Esposito contends that there were errors in the district court’s fact-finding process,
6 including in its credibility determinations during the evidentiary hearing. We discern no clear
7 error in the district court’s findings of fact. Magistrate Judge Lindsay conducted a comprehensive
8 evidentiary hearing, which included testimony from Esposito, Dr. Campo, Dr. DiCanio, office
9 staff, and several college officials. Based upon that hearing, Magistrate Judge Lindsay found that
10 SCCC had established by clear and convincing evidence that Esposito had forged Dr. Campo’s
11 records. There was more than sufficient support in the record for that finding, including testimony
12 from Dr. Campo during which he denied writing an August 9, 2005 note that he allegedly authored
13 and signed; he stated that the note was not part of his certified medical record and was inconsistent
14 with his medical findings regarding Esposito at that time. Magistrate Judge Lindsay rejected
15 Esposito’s claim during the hearing that, with the assistance of someone on Dr. Campo’s staff,
16 Esposito made changes to her own treatment note and that the staff person approved the changes.
17 Magistrate Judge Lindsay specifically found that plaintiff’s testimony “is simply not believable,”
18 explaining that the testimony was not only contradicted by Dr. Campos’s testimony and that of his
19 staff, but also was inconsistent with the fact that no copy of that note was in her medical file.
20 App’x at 232–34. Although Esposito disagrees with Magistrate Judge Lindsay’s credibility
21 assessments, which were adopted after de novo review of the record by both Judge Spatt and Judge
22 Brown, there is no basis to disturb those well-supported credibility assessments. See Ceraso v.
4
1 Motiva Enters., LLC, 326 F.3d 303, 316 (2d Cir. 2003) (“In reviewing findings for clear error, we
2 are not allowed to second-guess either the trial court’s credibility assessments or its choice between
3 permissible competing inferences.”); see also Anderson, 470 U.S. at 574 (“Where there are two
4 permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly
5 erroneous.”).
6 Second, Esposito argues that the district court violated the law of the case doctrine by
7 reconsidering its prior order, in which it had concluded that lesser sanctions were sufficient.
8 However, that “doctrine is admittedly discretionary and does not limit a court’s power to
9 reconsider its own decisions prior to final judgment.” DiLaura v. Power Auth. of State of N.Y.,
10 982 F.2d 73, 76 (2d Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[T]he major
11 grounds justifying reconsideration are an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of
12 new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Id. (internal
13 quotation marks and citation omitted).
14 Here, Judge Brown re-visited the sanctions issue based upon an assessment of additional
15 duplicitous conduct by Esposito not considered by Judge Spatt:
16 In awarding sanctions short of dismissal—which, of course, does represent an
17 extreme penalty—Judge Spatt noted that “the forgery of the Campo notes is the
18 only duplicitous behavior that the Defendants established by clear and convincing
19 evidence[.]” Particularly in light of the record now before the Court, a different
20 conclusion is warranted. Plaintiff engaged in dishonest, manipulative behavior that
21 ranged far beyond the forgery of Dr. Campo’s notes. As discussed above, these
22 efforts by plaintiff—many of which are incontestable—included: (1) submitting
23 false and fraudulent documents to the EEOC well before the filing of this action;
24 (2) attesting to her counsel in 2016 the accuracy of the complaint herein, which is
25 replete with references to fictitious events and the fraudulently created forgeries;
26 (3) offering false testimony at her deposition in 2018; (4) obtaining, or attempting
27 to obtain, additional documents to support her perjurious testimony at or around the
28 time of her deposition; and (5) offering unequivocally false testimony before the
5
1 Magistrate Judge at an evidentiary hearing in 2019. Standing alone, these events
2 clearly constitute an extended pattern of duplicitous behavior.
3
4 App’x at 266–67 (internal citations and footnotes omitted). Judge Brown also considered
5 Esposito’s troubling conduct since Judge Spatt’s ruling:
6 Equally important is the subsequent history of this matter. At this writing, nearly
7 18 months have elapsed since this Court—through independent decisions by Judges
8 Spatt and Lindsay—condemned plaintiff’s “egregious” behavior, specifically
9 noting that the misdeeds “occurred as a product of intentional bad faith” and
10 decrying that they “were not corrected by the Plaintiff.” Notwithstanding this
11 disconcerting history, litigation has continued unabated, while plaintiff has taken
12 no steps to correct the record or otherwise compensate for her contumacious
13 conduct. No amendment has been made to the complaint, which is still laden with
14 references to fictitious evidence. A review of the massive record reveals nothing
15 filed by plaintiff to correct the perjurious testimony offered either at her deposition
16 or at the evidentiary hearing in this Court. Countless days and significant costs
17 have been expended by defense counsel and the Court in endeavoring to ferret out
18 the falsehoods unreservedly fabricated by the plaintiff, yet the record remains bereft
19 of any effort by plaintiff to correct or otherwise remedy the numerous false, sworn
20 statements made, the fabricated evidence created or the attendant harm inflicted by
21 these acts.
22
23 App’x at 267–68 (internal citations omitted). In short, Judge Brown did not violate the law of the
24 case doctrine but rather was well within his discretion in determining, after partially granting
25 Esposito’s request for reconsideration of the monetary sanctions Judge Spatt had previously
26 imposed by vacating the award to SCCC of attorney’s fees and costs, that “some additional
27 remedy”—namely, dismissal—was necessary because of, inter alia, “[t]he need for deterrence.”
28 App’x at 272.
29 Finally, to the extent Esposito contends that the district court incorrectly concluded that the
30 forged documents were material to her case and lesser sanctions would be insufficient, we disagree.
31 As to the materiality of the forged documents, the district court reasonably concluded that the
32 forged evidence was “central to [Esposito’s] disability discrimination claims,” App’x at 269,
6
1 because the record reflects that Esposito used the forged documents to support her claim that SCCC
2 denied her requested accommodations. Specifically, she alleged that, in August 2005, she
3 “provided SCCC with a note from her physician documenting the nature and scope of her
4 disability, as well as the limitations resulting therefrom.” Dist. Ct. Dkt. 1 (Complaint) at 7.
5 As to lesser sanctions being sufficient, the district court determined, relying on the history
6 of the case—including Esposito’s inability to pay substantial monetary penalties, and especially
7 her failure to take any corrective action in the 18 months since Judge Spatt imposed the initial
8 sanction, and her continued reliance on the forged documents in her response to the summary
9 judgment motion—that it had “no confidence that [Esposito would] not continue to engage in
10 misconduct, [could not] anticipate the testimony that [she] would offer before a jury, and [found]
11 that her unrelenting, outrageous conduct thoroughly undermine[d] her credibility.” App’x at 276.
12 Based upon that record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
13 concluding that “any lesser sanction, on this record, would fail to meet the needs of specific and
14 general deterrence required by [Esposito’s] conduct, or provide a just and efficient result in this
15 case.” App’x at 276; see also Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 45 (1991) (explaining that
16 “outright dismissal of a lawsuit . . . is a particularly severe sanction, yet is within the court’s
17 discretion”); Shangold v. Walt Disney Co., 275 F. App’x 72, 74 (2d Cir. 2008) (summary order)
18 (concluding that dismissal was not an abuse of discretion when the plaintiffs’ “repeated false
19 statements show their willfulness and bad faith”).
20 * * *
21
7
1 We have considered Esposito’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
2 Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
3 FOR THE COURT:
4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
8