Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 29, 2025

Simpson v. Chassen

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:25-cv-04004
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedureBankruptcy
In one sentence

In Simpson v. Chassen, Judge Furman denied Simpson’s Rule 60(b) application as frivolous and terminated ECF No. 44.

Who this affects

Jeffrey Simpson’s Rule 60(b) application was denied, and ECF No. 44 was terminated. The provided order does not state what effect, if any, the ruling had on the earlier judgment or the other parties.

What happened

Jeffrey Simpson v. Jared Chassen et al. concerns Simpson’s request for relief from an earlier judgment. The provided text does not describe that judgment or the underlying claims.

Simpson, through counsel, asked the court to vacate the judgment under Rule 60(b)(2) through (4), citing alleged jurisdictional problems, lack of standing, possible new evidence, and alleged abuse of process and fraud. He also asked the court to defer a ruling while related bankruptcy proceedings and an appeal were resolved.

Judge Jesse M. Furman denied the application as frivolous and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 44. The order does not explain further why the application was frivolous.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Simpson v. Chassen · No. 1:25-cv-04004
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Aug. 29, 2025

Background

The provided document is a memorandum submitted for Jeffrey Simpson, identified as the plaintiff and movant, together with a brief order entered on August 29, 2025. The document does not describe the earlier judgment’s substance, the underlying claims, or the court’s earlier reasoning.

Simpson’s Application

Through counsel, Simpson moved for relief from the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2) through (4). Rule 60(b) allows a party to seek relief from a judgment on specified grounds. Simpson asserted that the judgment was void for lack of jurisdiction and standing, and also referred to potentially newly discovered evidence, abuse of process, and fraud on the courts.

Simpson asked the court to defer deciding the request to vacate the judgment and to hold the application in abeyance while related proceedings in the United States Bankruptcy Court and a related appeal were resolved. The memorandum discussed disputes involving Arch Real Estate Holdings LLC, Jared Chassen, 35 Oak Holdings Ltd., other entities, and proceedings in New York state court. Those discussions reflected Simpson’s allegations and arguments; the order does not make findings resolving them.

Ruling

Judge Jesse M. Furman’s order states: “Application DENIED as frivolous.” The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 44. The order does not state that the judgment was vacated, does not grant Simpson’s request for deferral, and does not provide additional reasoning for finding the application frivolous.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.