Cordero Romero v. Goldman Sachs Bank USA
- Gregory Woods
- 1:25-cv-02857
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Cordero Romero v. Goldman Sachs Bank USA: Judge Woods denied reconsideration and denied fee-free appeal status.
Michael Cordero Romero’s request for expedited discovery and his ability to pursue an appeal without paying court fees in advance were affected; the order did not decide the underlying claims against Goldman Sachs Bank USA.
What happened
In Cordero Romero v. Goldman Sachs Bank USA, Michael Cordero Romero asked the court to reconsider its earlier decision denying expedited discovery related to his request for a preliminary injunction.
The court said reconsideration is available only for reasons such as overlooked controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error. It found that Cordero Romero had not shown any of those reasons and instead presented a new discovery argument that lacked merit.
Judge Gregory H. Woods denied the motion for reconsideration. He also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Cordero Romero fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Cordero Romero v. Goldman Sachs Bank USA · No. 1:25-cv-02857
- Gregory Woods
- May 12, 2025
Background
The opinion concerns Plaintiff Michael Cordero Romero’s request to revisit an earlier order denying expedited discovery in connection with his application for preliminary injunctive relief. The court stated that it assumed the parties’ familiarity with the facts and did not describe those facts in this order.
Motion for Reconsideration
On April 28, 2025, Cordero Romero filed a motion for reconsideration under Local Rule 6.3. The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy and generally requires the moving party to identify an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error or manifest injustice that could alter the earlier decision. Reconsideration is not available merely to relitigate an issue that the court already decided.
The court found that Cordero Romero did not identify an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error concerning the denial of expedited discovery. Instead, he presented a new basis for discovery, which the court found lacked merit.
Ruling
The court denied Cordero Romero’s motion for reconsideration. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied in forma pauperis status—the status that permits a person to pursue an appeal without paying court fees in advance—for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at Dkt. No. 35.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.