Kelsey v. Rosa
- Philip Halpern
- 7:24-cv-05179
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Kelsey v. Rosa, Judge Halpern denied Kelsey’s request to reconsider the earlier denial of a temporary restraining order as untimely.
Michael N. Kelsey, whose request for reconsideration was denied; the earlier denial of his request for a temporary restraining order was not changed.
What happened
In Kelsey v. Rosa, Michael N. Kelsey asked the court to reconsider its February 19, 2025 denial of his request for a temporary restraining order. He made the request in an April 23 letter.
The court said the earlier decision was not a final judgment, so Kelsey’s letter could not be treated as a request under the federal rules for changing or ending a final judgment. The court instead treated it as a request for reconsideration under the court’s local rule. That rule required the request to be filed within 14 days, and Kelsey’s letter was filed later than that deadline. He also did not file a formal notice of motion, although the court assumed for purposes of its ruling that his letter could serve that function.
Judge Philip M. Halpern denied Kelsey’s reconsideration request as untimely. The court directed the clerk to mail Kelsey a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- Kelsey v. Rosa · No. 7:24-cv-05179
- Philip Halpern
- May 5, 2025
Background
On January 30, 2025, Michael N. Kelsey submitted a letter seeking a temporary restraining order. The defendants opposed that request, Kelsey replied, and the court held a telephone conference. On February 19, 2025, the court denied the request.
On April 23, 2025, Kelsey submitted a letter asking the court to rescind and reconsider the order denying temporary restraining-order relief. His letter referred to a February 20 order, but the opinion identifies the relevant order as the February 19 order.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that no judgment had been entered and that its February 19 decision was an interlocutory order—that is, a nonfinal decision made during the case. For that reason, Kelsey’s request could not be treated as a motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b), which apply to changing or obtaining relief from a judgment or other final ruling.
The court construed Kelsey’s letter, giving him every benefit, as a motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3. That rule requires a notice of motion for reconsideration or reargument to be served within 14 days after the court’s decision. Kelsey did not file a notice of motion. The court nevertheless assumed that his letter could substitute for the required notice, but concluded that the letter was filed more than 14 days after the February 19 order. The court therefore found the motion untimely.
Disposition
Judge Philip M. Halpern denied Kelsey’s letter requesting reconsideration of the February 19 order. The court directed the clerk to mail Kelsey a copy of the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.