UBS Financial Services Inc. v. Revenue Funding Services LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:16-cv-07515
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
UBS Financial Services v. Revenue Funding Services: Judge Schofield denied the Herman Defendants’ request to reconsider sanctions against UBS.
The ruling affected the Herman Defendants’ request to reconsider sanctions against UBS Financial Services Inc. The court denied that request and did not impose sanctions in this order.
What happened
In UBS Financial Services Inc. v. Revenue Funding Services LLC, the Herman Defendants asked the court to reconsider its earlier denial of their request for sanctions against UBS under federal law and the court’s inherent powers.
The court had required the Herman Defendants to submit evidence supporting their allegations and showing bad faith. They submitted no such evidence, then sought reconsideration and more time after their counsel became ill. UBS opposed the request.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield held that the Herman Defendants identified no change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or injustice. The court therefore denied their reconsideration motion.
The detailed version
- UBS Financial Services Inc. v. Revenue Funding Services LLC · No. 1:16-cv-07515
- Lorna Schofield
- Dec. 20, 2019
Background
The Herman Defendants—Defendant Maurice Herman and all remaining defendants except JPMorgan—filed a letter motion seeking sanctions against UBS Financial Services Inc. under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and the court’s inherent powers. The court directed them to file evidence supporting the alleged conduct and showing that it was taken in bad faith.
The Herman Defendants did not file the requested evidence. On December 17, 2019, the court denied their sanctions motion because unsupported allegations were insufficient to establish the bad faith required for sanctions under either § 1927 or the court’s inherent authority.
Motion for Reconsideration
The Herman Defendants then moved for reconsideration of the December 17 order and requested additional time to provide supporting evidence. Their letter stated that the undersigned judge had become ill on December 16, the date the submission was due. UBS opposed the motion, arguing that the court had already allowed a full week to submit evidence and that there was no basis for reconsideration.
The court applied the strict standard for reconsideration. Reconsideration generally requires the moving party to identify an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, a clear error, or a need to prevent manifest injustice. It is not an opportunity to make arguments that could have been made earlier.
Ruling
The court found that the Herman Defendants did not identify any change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or injustice. The court therefore ordered that their motion at Dkt. No. 94 was denied. This order addressed reconsideration of the sanctions ruling; the opinion does not impose sanctions.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.