QS Holdco Inc. v. Bank Of America Corporation
- Richard Sullivan
- 1:18-cv-00824
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In QS Holdco v. Bank Of America, Judge Sullivan denied QS Holdco’s remaining request to change the judgment after an earlier dismissal based on claim-ownership rules.
QS Holdco Inc. and the defendants, including Bank Of America Corporation; the earlier judgment for the defendants remained unchanged.
What happened
QS Holdco Inc. v. Bank Of America Corporation arose after the court dismissed QS Holdco’s complaint because it no longer owned the claims it sought to bring. The court had entered judgment for the defendants.
QS Holdco asked the court to vacate the judgment so it could amend its complaint or, alternatively, change the judgment so it could pursue its New York-law claims in state court. The court had already denied the request to vacate the judgment and allow an amendment, leaving the request concerning dismissal of the state claims.
Judge Richard J. Sullivan denied what remained of QS Holdco’s motion. He found that QS Holdco identified no overlooked authority or other basis under the relevant rules requiring or allowing the court to change the final judgment.
The detailed version
- QS Holdco Inc. v. Bank Of America Corporation · No. 1:18-cv-00824
- Richard Sullivan
- Jan. 6, 2020
Background
On August 6, 2019, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the operative complaint. The stated basis was Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a), because QS Holdco no longer owned the claims it sought to assert and therefore was not the person legally entitled to bring them. The Clerk entered judgment for the defendants the next day.
QS Holdco then moved under Rules 60(b) and 59(e) to vacate the judgment so it could amend its complaint. Alternatively, it asked the court to amend the judgment so it could pursue its New York-law claims in state court. On September 10, 2019, the court denied the request to vacate the judgment and allow an amendment, but requested briefing on whether the state-law claims should be dismissed without prejudice.
Analysis
The court explained that Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b) provide extraordinary relief for correcting clear errors, preventing manifest injustice, or addressing factual matters or controlling decisions that the court overlooked. The parties had not addressed whether dismissal of the New York claims under Rule 17 should be with or without prejudice, and the earlier order had not specified the issue. The court also noted that Rules 17 and 41 did not answer that question.
The defendants had not identified a procedural reason under New York or federal law preventing QS Holdco from attempting to bring similar claims in state court. But the court stated that Rule 17 concerns access to federal courts and that QS Holdco had not identified authority showing that a New York state court would apply less demanding standing requirements. The court concluded that QS Holdco had identified no authority the court had overlooked and no authority requiring or even allowing relief from the final judgment under Rules 59(e) or 60(b).
Ruling
Judge Richard J. Sullivan ordered that what remained of QS Holdco’s motion was DENIED. The opinion does not state that the court changed the earlier judgment or specify whether the earlier dismissal of the state-law claims was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.