O'Neil v. Provenzano
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:19-cv-05283
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In O'Neil v. Provenzano, Judge Ramos denied O’Neil’s motion to add Genco to a prior judgment, finding no basis to set that judgment aside.
Patricia O’Neil’s request to add Genco Olive Oil Company to the existing default judgment was denied. Daniel Provenzano remained directed to respond to O’Neil’s contempt request, which the court did not decide in this order.
What happened
O'Neil v. Provenzano began when Patricia O’Neil, representing herself, sued Daniel Provenzano for defamation and related claims. The court entered a $222,978 default judgment against Provenzano in 2020. After collection efforts were unsuccessful, O’Neil asked to add Provenzano’s corporation, Genco Olive Oil Company, as a co-defendant in the judgment.
O’Neil argued that Provenzano had not complied with the judgment, had not responded to an information subpoena, and had used a Genco bank account for personal expenses. She also said she did not know she should have named Genco when she filed the case. The court considered rules allowing a judgment to be changed or set aside, including rules for reconsideration, excusable neglect, and extraordinary circumstances.
The court denied O’Neil’s motion to amend the judgment because she did not show the required basis for setting aside the 2020 judgment, Judge Ramos ruled. The court also directed Provenzano to respond to O’Neil’s contempt request by April 21, 2025, and scheduled a telephone conference for April 29, 2025.
The detailed version
- O'Neil v. Provenzano · No. 1:19-cv-05283
- Edgardo Ramos
- Apr. 14, 2025
Background
Patricia O’Neil, representing herself, sued Daniel Provenzano for defamation and related claims on June 5, 2019. On October 9, 2020, the court entered a default judgment against Provenzano for $222,978. Provenzano appealed, but the appeal was dismissed after he failed to pay the appeal fee.
O’Neil later filed a writ of execution and asked that Provenzano be held in contempt for failing to comply with the civil judgment. On January 30, 2025, she moved to amend the judgment to add Provenzano’s corporation, Genco Olive Oil Company, as a co-defendant. She argued that Provenzano had not complied with the judgment or responded to an information subpoena, that collection efforts had failed, and that he had held monetary assets in a Genco bank account and used them for personal expenses. O’Neil also said she did not know she should have named Genco as a co-defendant when she filed her complaint.
Legal standards
The court explained that a party seeking to amend a complaint after judgment must first have the judgment vacated or set aside under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or Rule 60(b). Rule 59(e) requires a motion to alter or amend a judgment within 28 days after the judgment is entered. The court described reconsideration under that rule as limited to an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, a clear error, or the need to prevent manifest injustice.
Rule 60(b) permits relief from a judgment in certain circumstances, including excusable neglect and, under Rule 60(b)(6), other reasons that justify relief. The court stated that Rule 60(b)(6) is a narrow catch-all provision requiring extraordinary circumstances, extreme and undue hardship, and grounds not covered by the other parts of the rule. Because the judgment was entered on October 9, 2020, the court concluded that O’Neil could not seek relief under Rule 60(b)(1), which is subject to a one-year time limit.
The court considered O’Neil’s statements about proceeding without a lawyer and relying on the court’s pro se assistance program. It treated those statements as an ineffective-assistance argument under Rule 60(b), while noting that O’Neil did not claim she had an attorney-client relationship with that program. The court concluded that she had not shown manifest injustice or extraordinary circumstances justifying relief from the judgment.
Ruling
The court denied O’Neil’s motion to amend the judgment, whether considered under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b)(6). The order did not decide O’Neil’s contempt request. Instead, it directed Provenzano to respond to that request by April 21, 2025, and scheduled a telephonic premotion conference for April 29, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. Judge Edgardo Ramos issued the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.