Order | Filed: August 21, 2026
| Entered: August 21, 2026
Gayosa Sosa v. Allied Modular et al
Motor Vehicle | New York Eastern
Order on Motion for Sanctions
ORDER denying in part 24 : On 7/20/2026, Plaintiff has filed a motion for sanctions against QLW Law Group, the firm formerly representing Plaintiff. Plaintiff and QLW Law Group also propose a briefing schedule for the motion. Pursuant to the Local Rules of the Eastern District of New York, QLW Law Group's opposition was already due 14 days after Plaintiff's motion was filed, in this case 8/3/2026. See Local Rule 6.1(b). QLW Law Group did not file any opposition by that deadline and, thus, the Court considers the motion based solely on Plaintiff's submission and QLW Law Group's earlier responses to the Court's Order to Show Cause 22 - 23 .
Plaintiff seeks sanctions pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court's inherent authority. Sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 are not appropriate because QLW Law Group did not make a frivolous filing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Similarly, sanctions pursuant to Rules 37 or 26 are inappropriate because QLW Law Group did not engage in a discovery violation nor made any improper certification. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, 37. Rule 37 sanctions also cannot be imposed against nonparty law firms. See NPF Franchising, LLC v. SY Dawgs, LLC , 37 F.4th 369, 382 (6th Cir. 2022).
The Court also finds sanctions pursuant to its inherent authority are not warranted here. The Court has significant discretion in determining whether to impose sanctions pursuant to its inherent power. See, e.g., Clean Air Car Serv. & Parking Branch Three, LLC v. Clean Air Serv. & Parking Branch Two, LLC , 24-CV-05444, 2025 WL 1005838, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2025). Bad faith is required to impose sanctions pursuant to that power. See, e.g., Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC, 24-CV-10049, 2026 WL 851337, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2026) (quoting United States v. Int'l Bhd. Of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of Am., AFL-CIO, 948 F.2d 1338, 1345 (2d Cir. 1991) (noting that the Second Circuit, in recognizing the need for restraint, has always required a particularized showing of bad faith to justify the use of the court's inherent power).
Among other things, Plaintiff asserts QLW Law Group did not timely surrender Plaintiff's file to incoming counsel, made errors in the pleadings, did not obey Court orders, and failed to appear at conferences. QLW Law Group's response to the Court's Order to Show Cause explained it had not turned over Plaintiff's file because it had not received a check, and it was under a mistaken belief that its appearance at the relevant conference was not necessary. QLW Law Group also alleges that it had not received communications from Plaintiff's current counsel, a dispute in which the Court declines to get involved. Although QLW Law Group's admitted oversights and mistakes demonstrate a level of inattentive and irresponsible practice that falls far below the standard expected of attorneys admitted to practice in this District, and may constitute breaches of the ethical and professional responsibilities of the attorneys involved, they do not amount to bad faith. See, e.g., Braun ex rel. Advanced Battery Techs., Inc. v. Zhiguo Fu, 11-CV-4383, 2015 WL 4389893, at *1721 (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2015) (recommending against awarding sanctions for misrepresentations, errors in pleadings, and other mistakes that were grossly negligent but did not amount to bad faith). For these reasons, Plaintiff's motion for sanctions against QLW Law Group is DENIED. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Seth D. Eichenholtz on 8/21/2026. (DC)