Brevard v. Credit Suisse
- Lewis Liman
- 1:23-cv-00428
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Brevard v. Credit Suisse, Judge Liman denied Brevard’s request to undo the judgment compelling arbitration.
Myra L. Brevard, who was representing herself, and Credit Suisse. The denial left the prior judgment compelling arbitration in place.
What happened
In Myra L. Brevard v. Credit Suisse, the court had previously dismissed Brevard’s action and ordered her dispute with Credit Suisse to arbitration based on a 2014 agreement. The court entered judgment in January 2024.
Brevard, who was representing herself, later asked the court to require mediation through JAMS or return the dispute to court, alleging delay and misconduct by Credit Suisse during mediation. The court treated her letter as a request to obtain relief from the judgment under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court found that Brevard had not shown a basis for relief under any part of Rule 60 and denied her motion. Judge Lewis J. Liman also directed the clerk to mail her a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- Brevard v. Credit Suisse · No. 1:23-cv-00428
- Lewis Liman
- Aug. 6, 2025
Background
The court previously granted Credit Suisse’s motion to dismiss Brevard’s action and compel arbitration. The court ruled that Brevard was bound by her 2014 agreement to use Credit Suisse’s Employment Dispute Resolution Program to resolve her dispute, and it entered judgment on January 3, 2024.
In August 2024, the court denied Brevard’s request for a temporary restraining order and a hearing concerning alleged misconduct by Credit Suisse in mediation or arbitration proceedings. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit later dismissed Brevard’s appeal, stating that it lacked an arguable basis in law or fact.
Motion and Analysis
In a June 16, 2025 letter, Brevard asked the court to require Credit Suisse to mediate through JAMS or to return the dispute to the court for mediation. She cited alleged delay and misconduct by Credit Suisse during mediation.
The court construed the letter as a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. Rule 60 permits a court, in specified circumstances, to provide relief from a final judgment. The court concluded that Brevard had not shown cause for relief under any part of that rule. It also cited the principle that the person seeking to vacate a final judgment bears the burden of showing entitlement to relief with highly convincing evidence.
Disposition
The court DENIED Brevard’s motion. It directed the clerk to mail a copy of the order to Brevard, who was proceeding without a lawyer. The order did not identify a specific Rule 60 subsection as the basis for the request.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.