Kamdem-Ouaffo v. Balchem Corporation

Background

The plaintiff proposed filing motions in two closed matters: Kamdem I, No. 17-CV-02810, and Kamdem II, No. 19-CV-09943. Because a filing injunction entered on April 13, 2023, he sought the court’s permission to file the proposed motions. He invoked Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which allows limited relief from a final judgment, and sought recusal of Judge Halpern and Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison (ret.).

Rule 60(b) Requests

The court denied leave to submit further briefing under Rule 60(b). It stated that the proposed requests were untimely: they were made almost four years after the court adopted the recommendation that imposed sanctions and dismissed Kamdem I, and almost three years after judgment closed Kamdem II.

The court also addressed the proposed requests on their merits. For Rule 60(b)(3), which concerns fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct, the court found that the plaintiff’s allegations were conclusory and reflected disagreement with the defendants’ legal arguments rather than proof of misconduct. For Rule 60(b)(4), which applies when a judgment is void, the court found that the plaintiff had not shown the required jurisdictional error or denial of notice and an opportunity to be heard. The court noted that the plaintiff’s arguments concerning his objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation had already been considered and rejected by the district court and the Court of Appeals. For Rule 60(b)(6), a provision covering other reasons that justify relief, the court found no extraordinary circumstances.

Recusal Requests

The plaintiff had previously sought Judge Halpern’s recusal based on dissatisfaction with the court’s rulings. He again sought leave to move for recusal, relying on Judge Cabranes’s recusal from a panel hearing an appeal in an unrelated matter. The court explained that recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455 generally requires circumstances that could reasonably question a judge’s impartiality, including qualifying conduct outside the judicial proceedings. It found no allegation of such conduct and held that disagreement with prior rulings, or another judge’s recusal in a different case before a different district judge, did not establish a basis for recusal.

Disposition

Judge Philip M. Halpern denied leave to file the proposed motions. The court stated that, even if the requests were treated as the motions themselves, they would be denied for the reasons discussed. The April 13, 2023 filing injunction remains in place. The Clerk was directed to terminate specified letter-motions in both cases and reject future submissions from the plaintiff filed without leave of court.

The court also denied, in a footnote, a request by the defendants concerning payment of $10,597.75 in attorney’s fees and costs because the request was made in an opposition letter. The defendants may make an appropriate separate application for that relief.