Liu v. Healthfirst, Inc.
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-06125
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Liu v. Healthfirst, Judge Swain denied Liu’s reconsideration, settlement, and appeal-extension motions after dismissing his claims.
Boxun Liu, whose requests to undo the earlier dismissal, pursue the proposed settlement, and obtain an appeal-time extension were denied; Healthfirst, Inc., which remained protected by the earlier dismissal.
What happened
In Liu v. Healthfirst, Inc., Boxun Liu asked the court to reconsider its earlier dismissal of his case, approve a proposed settlement, and extend the time to appeal. The court had dismissed his false-advertising claims under the Lanham Act and his claims under the Fair Trade Commission Act for failure to state a claim, and declined to consider his state-law claims.
The court treated Liu’s reconsideration request as motions under Rules 59(e) and 60(b), which allow a party to seek changes to or relief from a judgment. It denied both motions because Liu did not show that the court had overlooked controlling law or facts, meet the requirements for relief under Rule 60(b), or show extraordinary circumstances. The court also denied the settlement motion because the dismissal remained in place.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Liu’s request for more time to appeal as unnecessary. She explained that the time to appeal began when this order was entered because Liu had timely filed his reconsideration motion. The court also denied him permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Liu v. Healthfirst, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-06125
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 7, 2025
Background
The court had dismissed Boxun Liu’s pro se action on November 20, 2024. It dismissed Liu’s false-advertising claims under the Lanham Act and his claims under the Fair Trade Commission Act for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims and expressly did not rule on the merits of claims Liu might pursue in state court.
On November 20, Liu filed a motion for settlement and a proposed settlement agreement. On December 10, he filed a motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On December 17, he filed a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.
Rule 59(e) motion
The court liberally construed Liu’s motion for reconsideration as both a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment and a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from the order and judgment.
Rule 59(e) relief requires a party to show that the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented. The court found that Liu had not shown that it overlooked controlling decisions or facts concerning the dismissal of his Lanham Act and Fair Trade Commission Act claims or its decision not to consider his state-law claims. The court also stated that it could not consider new theories or allegations raised in the motion. It therefore denied Liu’s Rule 59(e) motion.
Rule 60(b) motion
Rule 60(b) permits relief from a final order or judgment for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct, a void judgment, satisfaction or reversal of the judgment, or another reason justifying relief.
The court found that Liu had not shown that any of the first five grounds applied. It also denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), which requires a reason separate from the grounds in clauses (1) through (5), a filing within a reasonable time, and extraordinary circumstances. The court found that Liu had not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances.
Motion for settlement
Because the court denied Liu’s requests for relief from the dismissal under Rules 59(e) and 60(b), it also denied his motion for settlement.
Motion to extend the appeal deadline
The court treated Liu’s request for an extension as a motion under Rule 4(a)(5) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Ordinarily, a party has 30 days after entry of a judgment or order to file a notice of appeal. But a timely Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) motion causes the appeal period to begin when the court enters the order resolving that motion.
Because Liu filed his reconsideration motion within 28 days of the November 20 judgment, the court held that the 30-day appeal period began when this order was entered. It therefore denied the Rule 4(a)(5) motion as unnecessary and stated that Liu still had time to file a timely notice of appeal.
Disposition
The court denied Liu’s Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b) motions, denied his motion for settlement, and denied his motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal as unnecessary. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied in forma pauperis status for purposes of an appeal, meaning Liu could not appeal without paying the required fees under that provision.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.