In Re: Lindsay
- Rochon
- 1:24-cv-08064
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In re Lindsay v. NewRez, Judge Rochon granted reconsideration, reopened the appeal, and set a May 1, 2025 briefing deadline.
Heather Jeanne Lindsay’s two bankruptcy appeals were reopened, giving her another opportunity to file opening briefs; NewRez LLC, doing business as Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, and U.S. Bank, National Association remained appellees in the principal appeal.
What happened
In re Lindsay v. NewRez LLC involved Heather Jeanne Lindsay’s appeal from a bankruptcy-court order. The court had dismissed the appeal without prejudice after Lindsay repeatedly failed to file her opening brief despite several extensions and warnings. She later asked the court to reconsider, and the appellees did not oppose her request.
Lindsay said she had filed timely requests for extensions, but the court found that she had not requested extensions for her opening brief in either this case or the related appeal, In re Lindsay v. Frost. The court also found that she did not explain why she failed to file the briefs or indicate that they were ready.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon granted reconsideration in both matters because Lindsay was representing herself and the motion was unopposed. The court reopened both cases and ordered Lindsay to file opening briefs by May 1, 2025, warning that another failure to meet the deadline could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- In Re: Lindsay · No. 1:24-cv-08064
- Rochon
- Apr. 16, 2025
Background
Heather Jeanne Lindsay appealed an order from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. Her opening appellate brief was initially due December 16, 2024. The court granted several extensions, including a final extension until February 7, 2025, and warned that the appeal could be dismissed if she did not file the brief.
Lindsay did not file the brief or contact the court by the final deadline. On February 18, 2025, the court dismissed the appeal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute a case or comply with a court order. The court entered a similar dismissal in Lindsay’s related appeal, In re Lindsay v. Frost, No. 1:24-cv-08064 (JLR).
Lindsay timely moved for reconsideration. She stated that she had filed timely notices and requests for extensions, but the court found that she had filed no requests concerning the deadline for her opening brief in either appeal. The extensions she obtained in the related matter concerned a reply supporting a request to pause the proceedings, not the opening appellate brief. The appellees did not oppose reconsideration.
Court’s Analysis
Reconsideration is an exceptional remedy generally available when the court overlooked controlling decisions or information that could change its earlier conclusion. The court found that Lindsay had not identified any such overlooked authority or information. It also found that she had not explained her failure to file the opening briefs or suggested that the briefs were ready.
Nevertheless, the court exercised leniency because Lindsay was representing herself and the reconsideration motion was unopposed. The court emphasized that people without lawyers must still comply with court orders and deadlines.
Ruling
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon granted Lindsay’s motion for reconsideration of the dismissal in In re Lindsay v. NewRez LLC and construed the motion to also grant reconsideration in In re Lindsay v. Frost. The Clerk of Court was directed to reopen both matters. Lindsay was ordered to file opening briefs in both appeals no later than May 1, 2025. The court warned that failure to meet that deadline could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. The opinion did not decide the underlying bankruptcy appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.