In re Pfizer Inc. Securities Litigation
- Laura Swain
- 1:04-cv-09866
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In re Pfizer Securities Litigation: Judge Swain denied Mark Stephenson’s reconsideration motion because it was untimely and lacked extraordinary circumstances.
Mark Stephenson’s reconsideration motion was denied. Plaintiffs’ counsel was separately directed to review his additional materials and report whether they support a claim under the settlement.
What happened
In re Pfizer Inc. Securities Litigation involved Mark Stephenson’s request to reconsider an earlier order denying his request for appointed counsel to pursue benefits from the 2016 settlement. He argued that newly available ownership records could show that he belonged to the shareholder class.
The court ruled that the request came more than one year after the earlier order, so the time limit barred relief based on mistake or newly discovered evidence. The court also found that Stephenson had not shown the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under the rule’s separate provision for exceptional situations.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the reconsideration motion. In a separate order, the court directed plaintiffs’ counsel to review Stephenson’s additional materials and report whether they support an administrable settlement claim; the reconsideration ruling did not decide that eligibility question.
The detailed version
- In re Pfizer Inc. Securities Litigation · No. 1:04-cv-09866
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 27, 2025
Background
Mark Stephenson, identified as the Proposed Claimant, moved without a lawyer for reconsideration of the court’s December 15, 2023, order denying his request for appointed counsel. That earlier request concerned pursuing benefits under the 2016 settlement that resolved this action. The court had denied the request because Stephenson had not shown that he was a member of the authorized shareholder class.
Stephenson’s September 27, 2025, motion included records and theories about tracing ownership. He argued that he could not previously establish class membership because the records were unavailable when a hearing was held in connection with his 2023 motion.
Legal standard and analysis
The court considered the motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which allows a court to provide relief from an order or judgment for specified reasons, including excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, misconduct, or other circumstances justifying relief. Requests based on excusable neglect or newly discovered evidence under Rule 60(b)(1) and (2) must be filed within one year.
The court concluded that Stephenson’s motion was filed more than one year after the order he sought to revisit. The one-year limit therefore barred relief under Rule 60(b)(1) and (2). The court also rejected relief under Rule 60(b)(6), the provision covering other reasons that justify relief. That provision cannot be used to avoid the one-year limit applicable to the other provisions. It also requires a motion to be filed within a reasonable time and to identify extraordinary circumstances. The court found that Stephenson had not identified extraordinary circumstances separate from the grounds he raised under Rule 60(b)(1) and (2).
Ruling and effect
The court denied Stephenson’s motion for reconsideration. Separately, it directed counsel for the plaintiffs to review his additional submissions and report to him and the court by November 24, 2025, whether the materials supported an administrable claim for settlement funds under the settlement’s terms. The order did not decide whether Stephenson was eligible to receive settlement funds. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate docket entries 767 and 769 and mail the order to Stephenson.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.