Case Law New York State Nat. Organ. for Women v. Terry, 88 Civ. 3071 (RJW).

New York State Nat. Organ. for Women v. Terry, 88 Civ. 3071 (RJW).

Document Cited Authorities (35) Cited in (31) Related

Morrison & Foerster, New York City (James A. Bergin, Jamie A. Levitt, of counsel), Now Legal Defense and Education Fund, New York City (Deborah Ellis, Rocio Cordoba, of counsel), Center for Constitutional Rights, New York City (Barbara Olshansky, of counsel), for Plaintiffs.

Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York City (Hillary Weisman, of counsel), for Plaintiff-Intervenor.

McCarthy & Secola, P.C., New Milford, CT (Joseph P. Secola, of counsel), Legal Center for the Defense of Life, New York City (Michael P. Tierney, of counsel), Bleakley Platt & Schmidt, White Plains, NY (William P. Harrington, of counsel), Morgan & Finnegan, L.L.P., New York City (John F. Sweeney, Gabriel P. Kralik, Michael O. Cummings, of counsel), A. Lawrence Washburn, New York City, for Defendants.

OPINION

ROBERT J. WARD, District Judge.

Plaintiffs move pursuant to Rule 43 of the Civil Rules for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York ("Local Rule 43") for an order reinstating this Court's May 10, 1990 Order adjudging defendants in contempt and imposing noncompensatory sanctions on defendants, subject to an opportunity for defendants to purge themselves of contempt. In addition, plaintiffs move pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, Rule 54, Fed. R.Civ.P., and Local Rule 43 for an order reinstating this Court's July 9, 1990 Order awarding plaintiffs attorneys' fees incurred in bringing a motion for contempt and as prevailing parties on their civil rights claims. For the reasons that follow, plaintiffs' motion is granted.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs commenced this action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York on April 25, 1988, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief to restrain defendants from blocking access to medical facilities providing abortions. The action was brought in response to defendants' plan to carry out a week of protests, denominated "Operation Rescue," at area abortion clinics from April 30 until May 7, 1988. In furtherance of their plan, defendants attempted to prevent abortions by converging on a different clinic or facility each day. The target facility was not to be disclosed in advance.

By order to show cause, plaintiffs sought to enjoin defendants, for the duration of the planned "Operation Rescue," from obstructing access to medical facilities performing abortions in New York City and the surrounding counties. On April 28, 1988, Justice Cahn of the Supreme Court, New York County, issued a temporary restraining order ("TRO"). Having been assured by the New York City Police Department that access to the clinics would be provided, Justice Cahn did not expressly enjoin Operation Rescue from blocking access to health care facilities performing abortions.

Despite the assurances of the police department, on May 2, 1988, 503 protestors succeeded in blockading the office of a Manhattan doctor who performed abortions at 154 East 85th Street. All of the protestors were arrested. On the afternoon of May 2, 1988, Justice Cahn issued a second TRO, which enjoined defendants from "trespassing on, blocking, obstructing ingress into or egress from any facility at which abortions are performed in the City of New York, Nassau, Suffolk or Westchester Counties from May 2, 1988 to May 7, 1988."

Despite the order, defendant Randall Terry ("Terry") led a demonstration in front of a Queens facility where abortions were performed on May 3, 1988. During the demonstration, in which protestors blocked ingress into and egress from the facility, several hundred demonstrators were arrested. Later that afternoon, Justice Cahn conducted a hearing on the matter, during which defendants removed the action to this Court. A hearing before this Court was scheduled for May 4, 1988.

At that hearing, the Court decided that it would adopt and continue Justice Cahn's May 2, 1988 TRO, modifying it by (1) adding coercive sanctions of $25,000 for each day that defendants violated the terms of the order, and (2) requiring defendants to notify the City in advance of the location of any demonstrations. On May 5, 1988, Operation Rescue conducted a demonstration in front of the Women's Choice Clinic in Hicksville, Long Island, a facility where abortions are performed. Protestors sat on the sidewalk in front of the clinic, blocking ingress into and egress from the clinic for three hours.

On May 6, 1988, Operation Rescue demonstrators returned to the East 85th Street office of the doctor who performed abortions. Terry personally participated in this protest, during which demonstrators blocked access to the office. As a result of the May 6, 1988 demonstration, 320 Operation Rescue protestors, including Terry, were arrested.

Following the events of May 5 and 6, 1988, and in accordance with the TRO, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking civil contempt sanctions against Operation Rescue and Terry. By Opinion dated October 27, 1988 ("the October 27 Opinion"), the Court granted the motion, denied defendants' cross-motion to dismiss, and adjudged Terry and Operation Rescue in civil contempt of the May 4 Order for their participation in the May 5 and May 6 demonstrations. N.O.W. v. Terry, 697 F.Supp. 1324, 1338 (S.D.N.Y.1988). A judgment was entered holding Terry and Operation Rescue jointly and severally liable for $50,000 in civil contempt sanctions, payable to the National Organization for Women ("N.O.W.").1

On October 7, 1988, plaintiffs moved to modify the Court's prior order to cover the dates October 28, 29, and 31, 1988, in response to defendants' publicized plan to conduct a "National Day of Rescue" at the end of October. The Court granted plaintiffs' motion after an evidentiary hearing, converting the TRO to a preliminary injunction on October 27, 1988 (the "Preliminary Injunction"). Defendants' applications to this Court and the Court of Appeals for a stay pending appeal of the Preliminary Injunction were denied. In spite of this, defendants proceeded with their plan, conducting two demonstrations on October 29, 1988 within the geographical area covered by the Preliminary Injunction.

One demonstration was held at the Women's Pavilion medical clinic in Dobbs Ferry, New York. Between 8 a.m. and 12:15 p.m., 250 Operation Rescue protestors blocked ingress into and egress from the clinic. During those same hours, 130 protestors blocked access to the Women's Pavilion clinic in Deer Park, New York. All 130 participants in the Deer Park blockade were arrested. Both clinics provide abortions and family planning counseling.

In retaliation for the Court's October 27, 1988 Opinion, Operation Rescue organized blockades of abortion providers in the New York City area from January 12 through January 14, 1989. N.O.W. v. Terry, 732 F.Supp. 388, 395 (S.D.N.Y.1990). Upon learning of Operation Rescue's plan, plaintiffs moved the Court for summary judgment on their claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) and state law, and for a permanent injunction on December 21, 1988. The Court heard oral argument on January 6, 1989. On January 10, 1989, the Court entered a permanent injunction ("the Permanent Injunction"), enjoining defendants from, among other things,

trespassing on, blocking, or obstructing ingress into or egress from any facility at which abortions are performed in the City of New York, Nassau, Suffolk or Westchester counties [and] physically abusing or tortiously harassing persons entering, leaving, working at, or using any services at any facility at which abortions are performed in the City of New York, Nassau, Suffolk, or Westchester Counties.

The injunction contained provisions limiting defendants' First Amendment right to sidewalk counsel. It also provided that defendants would be fined for failing to give the City of New York advance notice of any demonstrations.

In addition, the Permanent Injunction set out a schedule of sanctions for future violations. The Court ordered that

the failure to comply with th[e] Order by any Operation Rescue participant with actual notice of the provisions of th[e] Order shall subject him or her to civil damages of $25,000 per day for the first violation of th[e] Order; and ... further ordered that each successive violation of th[e] Order shall subject the contemnor to a civil contempt fine double that of the previous fine; and ... further ordered that any amounts collected thereunder shall be paid into the Registry of the Court to be disbursed by further Order of the Court; and ... further ordered that each contemnor shall be jointly and severally liable for all attorneys' fees and related costs incurred by plaintiffs in...

5 cases
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit – 1998
New York State Nat. Organization for Women v. Terry
"...Injunction during the previous seven years or by the enactment of the FACE Act, 18 U.S.C. § 248. See New York State Nat'l Org. for Women v. Terry, 952 F.Supp. 1033, 1039 (S.D.N.Y.1997). The court reinstated the fines. It ordered "coercive civil penalties" payable to the United States, subje..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico – 2021
JBI Elec. Sys., Inc. v. KW AQE, LLC
"... ... No. CIV 19-0614 JB/SCY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR ... properly licensed general contractor in the State of New Mexico; (ii) the Court declines to dismiss ... See Nat'l Metro. Bank v. United States , 323 U.S. 454, ... 88)("KW MSJ Response"). KW AQE states that it ... according to the law of the State of New York and the parties submit to the jurisdiction of the ... 1982)(" Sunworks ")(citing Terry v. Pipkin , 1959-NMSC-049, 66 N.M. 4, 340 P.2d ... and applying the state law is acting as an organ of the State and its determination, in the ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico – 2019
Payne v. Tri-State Careflight, LLC
"... ... WILKINS; VIRGINIA WILLIAMS; SARA YURKOVICH; TERRY ZACHARIAS and MICHAEL ZULASKI, Plaintiffs, v ... STAMPER, Defendants. No. CIV 14-1044 JB/KBM No. CIV 17-0796 JB/CG UNITED ... Page 66         88. Last, the Plaintiffs argue that they have ... 'corporate culture' permits bias against women to infect, perhaps subconsciously, the ... Judge for the Southern District of New York, wrote: [W]hile the potential for higher ... ")(quoting Member Servs. Life Ins. v. Am. Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. of Sapulpa , 130 F.3d 950, 957 ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico – 2021
Kottke Cattle, LLC v. Zia Agric. Consulting
"... ... No. CIV 21-1004 JB United States District Court, D. New ... the court must ... state the findings and conclusions that ... Credit ... Union v. Nat'l Credit Union Admin. Bd. , 350 ... as an organ of the State and its determination, in the ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico – 2022
Thornton v. The Kroger Co.
"... ... No. CIV 20-1040 JB/JFR United States District Court, D ... Thornton's State law claims where the Federal Meat ... 88 ... “After beef is inspected for ... , ... 464 U.S. 238, 251 (1984); New York State Conf. of Blue ... Cross & Blue Shield ... See MTD Response at 26 (citing Nat'l Broiler ... Council v. Voss , 44 F.3d at ... as an organ of the State and its determination, in the ... provisions of the Violence Against Women Act, 42 U.S.C ... § 13981(c)), Gonzales ... "

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit – 1998
New York State Nat. Organization for Women v. Terry
"...Injunction during the previous seven years or by the enactment of the FACE Act, 18 U.S.C. § 248. See New York State Nat'l Org. for Women v. Terry, 952 F.Supp. 1033, 1039 (S.D.N.Y.1997). The court reinstated the fines. It ordered "coercive civil penalties" payable to the United States, subje..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico – 2021
JBI Elec. Sys., Inc. v. KW AQE, LLC
"... ... No. CIV 19-0614 JB/SCY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR ... properly licensed general contractor in the State of New Mexico; (ii) the Court declines to dismiss ... See Nat'l Metro. Bank v. United States , 323 U.S. 454, ... 88)("KW MSJ Response"). KW AQE states that it ... according to the law of the State of New York and the parties submit to the jurisdiction of the ... 1982)(" Sunworks ")(citing Terry v. Pipkin , 1959-NMSC-049, 66 N.M. 4, 340 P.2d ... and applying the state law is acting as an organ of the State and its determination, in the ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico – 2019
Payne v. Tri-State Careflight, LLC
"... ... WILKINS; VIRGINIA WILLIAMS; SARA YURKOVICH; TERRY ZACHARIAS and MICHAEL ZULASKI, Plaintiffs, v ... STAMPER, Defendants. No. CIV 14-1044 JB/KBM No. CIV 17-0796 JB/CG UNITED ... Page 66         88. Last, the Plaintiffs argue that they have ... 'corporate culture' permits bias against women to infect, perhaps subconsciously, the ... Judge for the Southern District of New York, wrote: [W]hile the potential for higher ... ")(quoting Member Servs. Life Ins. v. Am. Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. of Sapulpa , 130 F.3d 950, 957 ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico – 2021
Kottke Cattle, LLC v. Zia Agric. Consulting
"... ... No. CIV 21-1004 JB United States District Court, D. New ... the court must ... state the findings and conclusions that ... Credit ... Union v. Nat'l Credit Union Admin. Bd. , 350 ... as an organ of the State and its determination, in the ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico – 2022
Thornton v. The Kroger Co.
"... ... No. CIV 20-1040 JB/JFR United States District Court, D ... Thornton's State law claims where the Federal Meat ... 88 ... “After beef is inspected for ... , ... 464 U.S. 238, 251 (1984); New York State Conf. of Blue ... Cross & Blue Shield ... See MTD Response at 26 (citing Nat'l Broiler ... Council v. Voss , 44 F.3d at ... as an organ of the State and its determination, in the ... provisions of the Violence Against Women Act, 42 U.S.C ... § 13981(c)), Gonzales ... "

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex