Sweigert v. Goodman
- John Koeltl
- 1:23-cv-05875
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In D. G. Sweigert v. Goodman, Judge Koeltl denied reconsideration and kept the defendant’s reply deadline at September 3, 2024.
The ruling affected D. G. Sweigert’s request for reconsideration and the defendant’s deadline to reply in support of the motion to dismiss.
What happened
In D. G. Sweigert v. Jason Goodman, the plaintiff asked the court to reconsider an order extending the defendant’s deadline to reply in support of a motion to dismiss. The plaintiff said he had sent a letter to the Clerk of Court that was received but not initially placed on the docket.
The court noted that the letter had since been docketed. It denied the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and directed the Clerk to close the motion on the docket.
Judge John G. Koeltl ruled that the defendant’s deadline to file the reply remained September 3, 2024. The court directed the parties to send requests for other relief to Magistrate Judge Figueredo.
The detailed version
- Sweigert v. Goodman · No. 1:23-cv-05875
- John Koeltl
- Aug. 14, 2024
Background
D. G. Sweigert moved for reconsideration of the court’s earlier order extending the time for the defendant to reply in support of the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The motion for reconsideration concerned docket entry 158 in case No. 23-cv-5875.
The plaintiff argued that he had sent a letter to the Clerk of Court and that the letter had not been docketed, even though the Clerk had confirmed receiving it. The court stated that the letter was docketed by the time it decided the motion.
Legal standard
The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy used sparingly. It may be justified by an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.
Ruling
The court denied the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. It directed the Clerk to close docket entry 163 in case No. 23-cv-5875. The court also stated that the defendant’s deadline to reply in support of the motion to dismiss remained September 3, 2024. Requests for other relief were to be directed to Magistrate Judge Figueredo.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.