In Re: Neelam Uppal

Background

Neelam Uppal, proceeding without a lawyer, appealed two orders from a bankruptcy adversary proceeding. One order dismissed her claims that Barry Wilkinson and Charlene Rodriguez violated the automatic stay in her Chapter 13 bankruptcy case. The other order awarded sanctions against her. On September 20, 2018, the district court affirmed both bankruptcy-court orders, granted the appellees’ sanctions motion, and directed Uppal to explain why she should not be barred from filing further actions without first obtaining permission.

Uppal then filed a motion for rehearing and rehearing by the full court, which Judge Broderick treated as a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and Local Civil Rule 6.3. She also filed a notice of appeal from the September 20, 2018 decision.

Motion for Reconsideration

The court explained that reconsideration is an exceptional remedy generally available only when the court overlooked controlling law or important information, when there is a change in controlling law, when new evidence becomes available, or when correction of a clear error is needed to prevent serious injustice. A reconsideration motion cannot simply repeat arguments already rejected or present arguments that could have been made earlier.

The court found that Uppal mainly repeated her earlier accusations that the bankruptcy judge and others were biased, that the appellees committed perjury and conspired against her, that they violated the automatic stay, and that the dismissal violated due process. The court had already addressed those arguments in its earlier decision.

Uppal’s new argument was that Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8008(a) deprived the bankruptcy judge of authority to enter the challenged orders. The court rejected that argument. It explained that Rule 8008(a) limits a bankruptcy court’s ability to act on certain motions only after an appeal has been docketed and is pending. According to the opinion, Uppal’s notice of appeal was premature because the bankruptcy judge had not yet entered the written orders, and the appeal was not docketed until later. The court therefore concluded that Rule 8008(a) did not apply.

The court held that Uppal had not shown the circumstances required for reconsideration and denied her motion.

Filing Injunction

The court also addressed the proposed filing injunction. It found that Uppal had not complied with the earlier order directing her to provide reasons why an injunction should not be imposed. The court stated that she had filed for bankruptcy six times and had initiated at least twenty-five federal proceedings, had been warned about unsupported allegations, and had been sanctioned on multiple occasions for bad-faith litigation.

Applying the factors used for injunctions against repeated abusive litigation, the court found that Uppal did not have an objective, good-faith expectation of prevailing in a future action and had imposed unnecessary burdens on the appellees, the court, and court personnel. The court concluded that an injunction was warranted. The discussion states that Uppal would have to seek permission before filing a future action in the district court or the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The conclusion states that the injunction would require her to seek permission before filing any future action in this Court.

Disposition

The court denied Uppal’s motion for reconsideration and ordered the filing injunction. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The order was signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick.