In re: Andrew Delaney

Background

Andrew Delaney, proceeding without a lawyer, had removed a bankruptcy case from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York to the Southern District of New York. In an order dated February 11, 2025, the court found the removal improper and remanded, or sent back, the case to the bankruptcy court. Delaney then filed a “motion to vacate remand order.”

The court noted that Delaney was a former attorney and was likely not eligible for the special consideration sometimes given to inexperienced people representing themselves. Even so, it interpreted his motion as seeking reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3 and relief from the earlier order under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3

A motion for reconsideration asks the court to revisit an earlier ruling because it overlooked controlling law or factual matters that had already been presented. The court explained that such motions are narrowly applied and cannot be used simply to repeat arguments or present new theories after an adverse ruling.

The court held that Delaney had not shown that it overlooked any controlling decisions or factual matters concerning why the removal was improper and why the case was remanded. The court therefore denied reconsideration relief.

Relief under Rule 60(b)

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, misconduct by an opposing party, a void judgment, or satisfaction or reversal of the judgment. The rule also permits relief for another reason, but that provision requires extraordinary circumstances and is available only when the other listed grounds do not apply.

The court considered Delaney’s arguments and held that, even under a liberal interpretation of his motion, he had not shown that any ground under Rule 60(b)(1) through (5) applied. The court also held that he had identified no extraordinary circumstances supporting relief under Rule 60(b)(6). The court therefore denied relief under Rule 60(b)(1) through (5) and separately denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6).

Disposition

The court denied Delaney’s motion, which it construed as seeking both reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3 and relief under Rule 60(b). It directed the clerk to terminate the motion, identified as ECF 7. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying court fees.