Mottola v. Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP

Background

Carol M. Mottola filed the action without a lawyer. The court had previously dismissed her complaint for failure to state a claim. The opinion states that Mottola appealed and that the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal because it lacked an arguable basis in law or fact.

Mottola later filed six documents, including a notice of voluntary dismissal, a letter concerning that notice, three documents titled “table of errors,” and a 240-page letter seeking reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The court stated that no action was necessary on the notice of voluntary dismissal because the action had already been dismissed before Mottola attempted to voluntarily dismiss it.

Rule 60(b) standard

Rule 60(b) allows a party to seek relief from an order or judgment for specified reasons, including mistake or excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct, a void judgment, satisfaction or reversal of the judgment, or another reason justifying relief. Requests under the first three grounds generally must be filed within one year.

Relief under Rule 60(b)(6), the rule’s catchall provision, requires a reason different from those covered by the first five provisions. It also requires a filing within a reasonable time and extraordinary circumstances warranting relief.

Court’s analysis

The court said it had considered Mottola’s arguments and, even reading her motion liberally, she had not shown that any of the first five Rule 60(b) grounds applied. The court therefore denied relief under those provisions.

The court also denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), finding that Mottola had not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances. The opinion does not provide a separate merits analysis of the claims in the original complaint.

Disposition

The court denied Mottola’s motion for reconsideration, identified as ECF 22, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all motions. The court stated that the case was closed and that no further documents should be filed unless Mottola sought to appeal. It warned that continued submissions could lead to an order requiring her to obtain permission before filing future documents in the action.

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal.