Zebrowski v. Harvest Capital Credit Corporation
- John Keenan
- 1:17-cv-05276
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Judge Keenan denied Zebrowski v. Harvest Capital's reconsideration motion, entered judgment for Harvest, and closed the case.
The plaintiffs' reconsideration motion was denied. Harvest Capital Credit Corporation received judgment in its favor, and the case was closed. The separate claim against Christals Acquisition, LLC had been dismissed without prejudice.
What happened
In Zebrowski v. Harvest Capital Credit Corporation, the plaintiffs asked Judge Keenan to reconsider an earlier order that rejected their summary-judgment motion and granted Harvest's competing motion.
The court found procedural problems because the plaintiffs did not follow the required pre-motion process and missed the deadlines for reconsideration. The court also said they raised a new argument about the transaction and that the earlier order had already considered the facts they said were overlooked.
Judge Keenan denied the motion for reconsideration and relief from judgment. He directed the Clerk to enter judgment for Harvest, terminate the motion, and close the case.
The detailed version
- Zebrowski v. Harvest Capital Credit Corporation · No. 1:17-cv-05276
- John Keenan
- Mar. 11, 2020
Background
Ross Jackson and The Gary A. Zebrowski Living Trust moved for reconsideration of the court's February 12, 2020 order. That earlier order denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted Harvest Capital Credit Corporation's cross-motion for summary judgment. The earlier order left one claim against Christals Acquisition, LLC. The plaintiffs later asked the court to dismiss that claim without prejudice, and the court granted that request before the plaintiffs filed the reconsideration motion.
Reasons for Denial
The court identified several defects. First, the plaintiffs did not follow Judge Keenan's individual rule requiring a pre-motion conference for most motions. Second, the court held that the motion was not timely under the applicable rules. The plaintiffs did not file within 14 days after the earlier order, as required for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3. The court also discussed Rule 59(e), which generally requires a motion to alter or amend a judgment within 28 days after judgment is entered, and noted that judgment had not yet been entered when the plaintiffs filed their motion.
The court also rejected the plaintiffs' arguments on substance. It said the plaintiffs had not previously argued that the netting transaction was factually impossible, and a reconsideration motion cannot generally introduce new facts, issues, or arguments. The court further said it had already considered the undisputed facts that the plaintiffs claimed were overlooked, including a contractual provision and the approximately $1.75 million balance increase and corresponding decrease involved in the transaction. The earlier order had also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the transaction was a sham.
Disposition
Judge John F. Keenan denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and relief from judgment. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion docketed at ECF No. 136, enter judgment in favor of Harvest Capital Credit Corporation, and close the case. The opinion states that the plaintiffs' claim against Christals had separately been dismissed without prejudice.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court denied a motion seeking reconsideration of an earlier ruling; it did not issue a new merits ruling on the underlying dispute.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.