Kim v. BTG Pactual Asset Management US, LLC
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:22-cv-03547
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Kim v. BTG Pactual Asset Management US, LLC, Judge Abrams denied motions to reopen the closed case and seal a letter.
Frank Kim and his former counsel, Outten & Golden LLP, were affected by the rulings concerning reopening the closed case, the charging lien, and sealing the letter. The order also terminated all pending motions in the case.
What happened
In Kim v. BTG Pactual Asset Management US, LLC, Frank Kim asked the court to reopen the case and vacate a charging lien filed by his former lawyers, Outten & Golden LLP. The lien appeared to concern a private mediation held after Kim voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice.
The court ruled that Kim had not shown the extraordinary circumstances required to reopen the case under the applicable court rule. It also said this case was not the proper place to resolve a fee dispute involving fees incurred after the case had closed. Kim separately asked the court to keep a letter from his former counsel under seal.
The court denied both motions. Judge Ronnie Abrams found that Kim had not properly justified sealing the letter, which was a court document subject to public access. The court reminded Kim that the case was closed and directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions.
The detailed version
- Kim v. BTG Pactual Asset Management US, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-03547
- Ronnie Abrams
- Jan. 22, 2025
Background
Frank Kim voluntarily dismissed this action without prejudice. Afterward, a private mediation occurred, and his former counsel, Outten & Golden LLP, filed a charging lien against him. A charging lien is a claim by a lawyer for payment from a client's recovery or other funds connected to the representation. The opinion states that the lien appeared to relate to the post-dismissal mediation.
On December 13, 2024, Kim moved to reopen the case so that the court could vacate the lien. He also moved to seal a letter filed by his former counsel at ECF No. 41.
Motion to Reopen
The court denied Kim's request to reopen the case. It held that he had not established a basis under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), which permits relief from a final judgment or order in extraordinary circumstances, to reinstate the action. The court also held that the case was not the appropriate forum for litigating a fee dispute concerning fees incurred after the case had closed.
Motion to Seal
The court separately denied Kim's motion to seal the letter. It explained that court documents generally carry a strong public right of access and that sealing requires specific, rigorous findings. Kim had not provided a proper justification for sealing the letter. The court also stated that, even if the cited New York court rules applied, the relevant provision did not require sealing because it only prevented an arbitration award from being admitted as evidence at a new trial; there had been and would be no trial in this action, and nothing had been admitted into evidence.
Disposition
The court denied the motion to reopen the case and the motion to seal the letter. It reminded Kim that the case was closed and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all pending motions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.