Komatsu v. The City of New York
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:18-cv-03698
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Komatsu v. The City of New York, Judge Schofield denied Komatsu’s motion asking the court to reconsider its earlier order.
Towaki Komatsu’s request for reconsideration was denied; the order also directed the clerk to mail the order to him and close Docket No. 248.
What happened
In Komatsu v. The City of New York, the court considered Towaki Komatsu’s request to reconsider its December 3, 2019, order, which had denied his request to file a partial summary-judgment motion without barring another request.
Komatsu sought reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. The court said reconsideration requires new evidence, a change in controlling law, or a clear error or serious unfairness. It found that Komatsu’s request showed none of those circumstances.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied the motion for reconsideration. The clerk was directed to mail the order to Komatsu, who was proceeding without a lawyer, and to close one docket because another docket substantially addressed the defendants’ requests.
The detailed version
- Komatsu v. The City of New York · No. 1:18-cv-03698
- Lorna Schofield
- Dec. 20, 2019
Background
On December 3, 2019, the court denied Towaki Komatsu’s request to file a partial motion for summary judgment, but did so without barring him from filing another request. On December 9, Komatsu moved for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60.
Reasoning
The court explained that reconsideration may be granted only when the moving party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. The court concluded that Komatsu’s request did not present new evidence, identify a change in controlling law, or establish clear error or manifest injustice in the December 3 order.
Ruling and Administrative Directions
The court denied Komatsu’s motion for reconsideration. The clerk was directed to mail a copy of the order to the pro se plaintiff. The clerk was also directed to close Docket No. 248 because Docket No. 249 substantially addressed the defendants’ requests.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.