Order | Filed: September 30, 2026
Alvarado et al v. GS Blow Dry Bar LLC et al
Labor: Fair Standards | New York Southern
Order
JUDGMENT: It is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment is hereby entered in favor of the Plaintiffs GIANCARLO ALVARADO, OYA KONYALI, BRIDGETTE J. RENFORD, AUDRA HINDS, and LUZ MARIA VARGAS GUZMAN and against Defendants GABRIEL SHIMUNOV SALON LLC, and GABRIEL SHIMUNOV, jointly and severally, with respect to the Plaintiffs' claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., and the New York Labor Law, in the total amount of Forty-Five Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($45,000.00), inclusive of all damages, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, pre-judgment interest, costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis on 9/30/2026) (jjc)
Order | Filed: September 30, 2026
| Entered: September 30, 2026
Peters v. Caton Towers Owners Corp.
Civil Rights: Jobs | New York Eastern
Order on Motion to Show Cause
ORDER: Defendant's 101 request that the Court impose an anti-filing injunction on plaintiff is denied.
"[A]bsent extraordinary circumstances,... a court has no power to prevent parties from filing legal documents authorized by the federal rules." Eliahu v. Jewish Agency for Isr., 919 F.3d 709, 713-14 (2d Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). When a litigant has a "demonstrated history of frivolous and vexatious litigation," however, the circumstances may be extraordinary enough for a court to "impose an anti-filing injunction." Id. at 714 (citation omitted). Considerations for the court when determining whether to impose such an injunction include: "(1) the litigant's history of litigation and in particular whether it entailed vexatious, harassing or duplicative lawsuits; (2) the litigant's motive in pursuing the litigation, e.g., does the litigant have an objective good faith expectation of prevailing?; (3) whether the litigant is represented by counsel; (4) whether the litigant has caused needless expense to other parties or has posed an unnecessary burden on the courts and their personnel; and (5) whether other sanctions would be adequate to protect the courts and other parties." Ibid. (citation omitted).
At this stage, the circumstances do not appear to justify an anti-filing injunction. Plaintiff's filings in this lawsuit, which have included five motions for temporary restraining orders, six motions for reconsideration, and a motion to alter or amend the judgment, have been duplicative. See Dkt. ## 2, 17, 20, 58, 75 (motions for temporary restraining orders); Dkt. ## 7, 27, 43, 45, 59, 69 (motions for reconsideration); Dkt. #48 (motion to alter or amend the judgment). Plaintiff also appears to have filed a large number of requests for relief in state court. See Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Anti-Filing Injunction 2 n.1 (Dkt. #101-3). Nevertheless, this appears to be the only federal civil lawsuit she has filed. See ibid. She is also proceeding pro se, and while her claims in this suit may or may not be meritorious, at least some claims appear to be non-frivolous.
Defendant has not identified any examples of a court issuing an anti-filing injunction against a pro se litigant whose history of federal litigation included a single suit containing non-frivolous claims. Instead, the cases cited by defendant involve more egregious fact patterns. See, e.g., Safir v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19, 24 (2d Cir. 1986) (litigant spent "twenty years" filing lawsuits and motions intended "to block and hinder various business transactions of the defendants," some of which were "patently meritless"); Iwachiw v. N.Y. State Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 396 F.3d 525, 529 (2005) (litigant filed at least ten actions in one federal district court, several of which "were dismissed... for frivolousness"); Eliahu, 919 F.3d at 715 (litigant submitted a complaint that was "verbatim" identical to one that had been previously dismissed by other federal courts); Carrington v. Graden, No. 18-CV-4609 (KPF), 2020 WL 5503537, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 11, 2020) (litigant "fabricated evidence" and "threat[ened] to begin anew his deceitful pattern of behavior"). Accordingly, the Court declines to issue an anti-filing injunction. Ordered by Judge Rachel P. Kovner on 9/30/2026. (ASG)