Velasquez v. Chocolate Dip LLC
- James Oetken
- 1:25-cv-00393
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Velasquez v. Chocolate Dip, Judge Oetken denied Velasquez’s request to reconsider the case’s dismissal without prejudice.
Ricardo Velasquez and the defendants in the case, including the landlord defendant whose name was allegedly misidentified.
What happened
In Velasquez v. Chocolate Dip, Ricardo Velasquez asked the court to reconsider its earlier dismissal of his case without prejudice. The court had dismissed the case after finding that Velasquez misnamed the landlord defendant and did not properly serve both defendants within 90 days.
Velasquez argued that the Secretary of State may have provided an incorrect address, which he said caused the service delay. He also acknowledged that his own failure to properly research the current landlord’s name contributed to the late service.
Judge Oetken denied the motion for reconsideration. He found that the court had overlooked neither controlling law nor an important fact, and found no clear error or manifest injustice requiring a different result.
The detailed version
- Velasquez v. Chocolate Dip LLC · No. 1:25-cv-00393
- James Oetken
- May 15, 2025
Background
Ricardo Velasquez moved for reconsideration of the court’s May 6, 2025 order. That earlier order denied his request for permission to amend and dismissed the case without prejudice because he had misnamed the landlord defendant and had not properly served either defendant within 90 days after filing his original complaint.
Legal standard
The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy used sparingly. A party seeking reconsideration must show one of three things: a change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct a clear error or prevent a manifest injustice.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that it had overlooked neither a controlling legal issue nor a crucial fact. Velasquez argued that he had good cause for the delay in service because the Secretary of State may have supplied an erroneous address. But Velasquez also admitted that his own failure to properly research the current landlord defendant’s name contributed to the failure to serve the defendants on time. The court therefore found no clear error or manifest injustice.
Disposition
Judge J. Paul Oetken denied Velasquez’s motion to reconsider and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at docket number 15. The opinion does not state that the court changed its earlier dismissal without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.