Lavi v. MUFG Bank
- James Oetken
- 1:22-cv-03167
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lavi v. MUFG Bank, Judge Oetken denied Pierre Lavi’s reconsideration motion, finding no overlooked controlling law or crucial record fact.
Pierre Lavi and MUFG Bank and the other defendants; the order also directs the Clerk regarding future filings.
What happened
In Lavi v. MUFG Bank, Pierre Lavi, who was representing himself, sent several letters after the Court had dismissed the case. The Court treated the letters as requests to reconsider those earlier dismissal orders.
The Court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy available when there is a change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error or serious injustice. It found that it had overlooked neither controlling law nor a crucial fact in the record.
Judge J. Paul Oetken denied Lavi’s motion to reconsider. Because the case was no longer active, the Court directed Lavi to stop filing related materials and said it would not docket additional reconsideration motions or legally unauthorized requests for relief.
The detailed version
- Lavi v. MUFG Bank · No. 1:22-cv-03167
- James Oetken
- Jan. 28, 2025
Background
After the Court’s orders dismissing the case, Pierre Lavi filed a series of letters. The Court determined that the letters appeared to request reconsideration of the dismissal orders. The opinion identifies Lavi as representing himself.
Legal standard
The Court stated that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly. A party seeking reconsideration must show one of three things: a change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct a clear error or prevent a serious injustice.
Ruling
The Court reviewed the record and Lavi’s letters and concluded that it had overlooked neither a controlling legal issue nor a crucial fact. Judge J. Paul Oetken therefore denied Lavi’s motion to reconsider.
Because the case was no longer active, the Court directed Lavi to stop filing related materials. It also notified him that the Court would no longer docket additional motions for reconsideration or requests for relief not permitted under law. The Clerk was directed to mail a copy of the order to Lavi.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.