Leib-Podry v. Tobias
Phillip Leib-Podry v. Geoffrey Tobias; Princeton Insurance Company; MedPro Group; Berkshire Hathaway
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-08614
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
Phillip Leib-Podry v. Geoffrey Tobias: Judge Caproni denied Leib-Podry’s late request to undo the judgment under Rule 60(b)(6).
The ruling leaves in place the judgment for Geoffrey Tobias, Princeton Insurance Company, MedPro Group, and Berkshire Hathaway, as well as the prior dismissal with prejudice of Phillip Leib-Podry’s claims. It also denies Leib-Podry permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
In Phillip Leib-Podry v. Geoffrey Tobias, Leib-Podry asked the court to undo its judgment dismissing his claims against Tobias and the other defendants. The court had previously dismissed the claims with prejudice and denied several other motions, including a request for default judgment.
Leib-Podry relied on a rule allowing relief from a final judgment in extraordinary circumstances. He argued, among other things, that he had tried to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation but that technical problems prevented the objection from being docketed. The court found that he waited nearly two years to seek relief and had not shown a compelling reason for the delay or extraordinary circumstances.
Judge Caproni denied the Rule 60(b)(6) motion. She also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion.
The detailed version
- Leib-Podry v. Tobias · No. 1:22-cv-08614
- Valerie Caproni
- Dec. 1, 2025
Background
Phillip Leib-Podry, representing himself, sued Geoffrey Tobias, Princeton Insurance Company, MedPro Group, and Berkshire Hathaway for medical malpractice, battery, sexual assault, conspiracy, and unfair trade practices. The defendants moved to dismiss. Leib-Podry also sought to seal the entire case, obtain default judgment, and obtain judgment on the pleadings.
A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the Complaint with prejudice because the claims were time-barred, failed to state a claim, or both. The recommendation also advised denying leave to amend because the claims were described as time-barred and factually frivolous. No objection to the recommendation appeared on the docket. On March 15, 2024, the Court adopted the recommendation in full, granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss, dismissed Leib-Podry’s claims with prejudice, and denied his motion to seal, motion for default judgment, and motions for judgment on the pleadings. The Clerk entered judgment for the defendants on March 18, 2024.
Rule 60(b)(6) Motion
On November 24, 2025, Leib-Podry moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) for relief from the judgment. Rule 60(b)(6) is a catchall provision permitting relief for another reason that justifies it, but only when the specific grounds in Rule 60(b)(1) through (5) do not apply. The court explained that such a motion must be filed within a reasonable time and must show extraordinary circumstances.
Leib-Podry argued that extraordinary circumstances existed. He asserted that he had filed an objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, but that technical problems delayed transmission of the objection and prevented it from being filed. The court noted that, even assuming the objection had been transmitted, Leib-Podry would have known in March 2024 that it had not been docketed because the order adopting the recommendation stated that no objections had been received.
Court’s Reasoning and Ruling
The court held that waiting nearly two years after judgment was entered was unreasonable under the circumstances. It found no facts justifying the delay. The court also concluded that Leib-Podry had not shown extraordinary circumstances. It characterized his assertions that the judgment caused repeated suicides, including child suicides, as unsupported by the record and unrelated to the case. The court further stated that the assertions in the Rule 60(b) motion were similar to allegations in the Complaint that the earlier recommendation had described as frivolous and irrational.
Judge Valerie Caproni denied Leib-Podry’s Rule 60(b) motion. 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 appeal without paying filing fees. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at Docket 85.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.