NSI INTERNATIONAL INC v. MUSTAFA (2018)

SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-appellant Mona Mustafa, proceeding pro se, appeals from a September 14, 2016 judgment awarding attorney's fees in favor of plaintiff-appellee NSI International, Inc. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

Mustafa has waived any argument against the fee award by failing to challenge the award in her brief on appeal. Cf. Harrison v. Republic of Sudan, 838 F.3d 86, 96 (2d Cir. 2016) (“It is a well-established general rule that an appellate court will not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal.” (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted)); LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 92–93 (2d Cir. 1995) (holding that pro se litigant waived issues not raised in brief). In any event, we find no abuse of discretion in the District Court's award of attorney's fees. See Barfield v. New York City Health and Hosps. Corp., 537 F.3d 132, 151 (2d Cir. 2008) (noting that we afford “considerable discretion” to district courts in setting attorney's fees).

Any challenge to our 2015 decision affirming the underlying judgment is not properly before us, and the law of the case doctrine precludes us from revisiting the decision absent a compelling reason to do so. See Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe's Borough Coffee, Inc., 736 F.3d 198, 208 (2d Cir. 2013).

We have reviewed all of the arguments raised by Mustafa on appeal and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the District Court's judgment awarding attorney's fees. We GRANT Mustafa's motion to accept the appendix and DENY her motions to compel and for judicial notice. The text orders she requests are just that, text. There are no separate documents. The documents she cites as missing from our docket are internal docket entries, which do not have corresponding documents. We DENY NSI International, Inc.’s motion for sanctions, but hereby warn Mustafa that any future frivolous or vexatious appeals, motions, or other filings may result in sanctions, including imposition of a leave-to-file sanction that would require her to seek permission to file an appeal, motion, or other papers in this Court. See Sassower v. Sansverie, 885 F.2d 9, 11 (2d Cir. 1989).