Ager v. Goodell
- Jesse Furman
- 1:25-cv-03630
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Ager v. Goodell, Judge Furman denied reconsideration, found jurisdiction adequately alleged, and ordered summonses issued.
The plaintiffs and the defendants named in the amended complaint, because the reconsideration motion was denied and the case was allowed to proceed toward service of process.
What happened
In Ager v. Goodell, the plaintiffs asked the court to reconsider its earlier order denying their request to temporarily block the defendants’ actions and requiring them to explain why the case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and a written response addressing the court’s jurisdiction concerns. The court concluded that the amended complaint properly alleged federal jurisdiction based on the parties’ citizenship and the amount in dispute.
Judge Furman denied the reconsideration motion because the plaintiffs identified no valid basis for revisiting the earlier order. He also stated that a separate order would direct the clerk to issue summonses for the defendants named in the amended complaint.
The detailed version
- Ager v. Goodell · No. 1:25-cv-03630
- Jesse Furman
- July 17, 2025
Background
On June 4, 2025, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, which sought temporary court-ordered relief, and directed them to show in writing why the complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Subject-matter jurisdiction is the court’s legal authority to hear a case.
The plaintiffs later filed an amended complaint that they said cured the jurisdictional defects identified by the court. They also filed a motion for reargument, which the court treated as a motion for reconsideration of its earlier order.
Ruling
The court denied the motion for reconsideration. It stated that the plaintiffs presented no valid grounds for reconsideration and cited the strict standard that generally prevents a party from using such a motion to relitigate old issues or present new theories.
The court separately concluded that the amended complaint properly alleged that the court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims. The court stated that, by separate order, it would direct the clerk to issue summonses for all defendants named in the amended complaint, and it directed the clerk to terminate the reconsideration motion from the docket.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.