Micha-El Bey v. Urban Financial Group, Inc.
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-01995
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Micha-El Bey v. Urban Financial Group, Judge Swain denied reconsideration of an order denying immediate preliminary-injunction relief.
The order directly affects Lindon David Micha-El Bey's request to reconsider the denial of immediate injunctive relief and his ability to appeal this order without paying filing fees. Urban Financial Group, Inc., and the other defendants are affected because the earlier denial of immediate relief remains in place.
What happened
In Micha-El Bey v. Urban Financial Group, Inc., the plaintiff asked the court to reconsider its earlier decision denying his requests for immediate relief, including relief that appeared intended to prevent an eviction. The plaintiff represented himself and had already appealed the earlier decision.
The court held that it had authority to consider the reconsideration request because the appeal concerned an order denying immediate court protection. Reconsideration was available only if the plaintiff showed that the court had overlooked controlling law or important facts already presented. The court found that he had not made that showing.
Judge Swain therefore denied the motion for reconsideration. The court also certified that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied the plaintiff permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Micha-El Bey v. Urban Financial Group, Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-01995
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 19, 2025
Background
On March 28, 2025, the court denied Lindon David Micha-El Bey's requests for immediate injunctive relief in a proposed order to show cause, a motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, and an affidavit supporting those requests. A preliminary injunction is a court order providing relief before the case is finally decided; a temporary restraining order is a related form of immediate relief. The court later explained that Micha-El Bey had not identified the specific relief he wanted and that his submissions did not show either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious legal questions combined with hardships strongly favoring him.
Micha-El Bey, who was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the usual filing fees, sent the court a letter asking it to reconsider the March 28 order. He also filed a notice of appeal concerning that order. The court treated the letter as a motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3.
Jurisdiction
The court first considered whether the notice of appeal prevented it from deciding the reconsideration motion. Generally, filing a notice of appeal transfers control over the appealed matters to the appeals court. The court explained, however, that the district court retains authority when the appeal concerns an order granting or denying a preliminary injunction. It therefore concluded that it had jurisdiction to consider Micha-El Bey's motion.
Reconsideration standard and analysis
Under Local Civil Rule 6.3, reconsideration requires showing that the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters that had already been presented. Such motions are narrowly applied and cannot be used simply to repeat arguments, introduce new theories, or submit new evidence after an unfavorable ruling.
The court found that Micha-El Bey identified nothing showing that it had overlooked controlling law or previously presented facts. The court therefore denied the motion for reconsideration.
Disposition
The court denied the motion for reconsideration. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.