Ramgoolie v. Ramgoolie

Background

On September 10, 2019, the Court granted Jenny Ramgoolie’s motion for sanctions and entered a default judgment against Andy Ramgoolie. On December 6, 2019, Andy moved for reconsideration of that order and asked the Court to stay, or pause, the action while a lawsuit filed later in Trinidad was resolved.

Reconsideration

The Court noted that Local Civil Rule 6.3 generally requires a motion for reconsideration to be served within 14 days after the relevant order or judgment. Although reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) may sometimes be considered after that period when new evidence could not reasonably have been discovered earlier, the Court found that Andy could have provided the claimed new information in his opposition to Jenny’s sanctions motion with minimal diligence.

The Court also applied the strict standard for reconsideration. Such relief generally requires an overlooked controlling decision or fact, an intervening change in controlling law, genuinely unavailable new evidence, clear error, or a need to prevent manifest injustice. The Court found that Andy’s motion, filed 87 days after the September 10 order, was inexcusable. It further found that the newly offered evidence was unpersuasive and had been known to Andy and in his possession while the sanctions motion was being briefed. The Court also noted that much of the supporting material was hearsay and that the declarations contained gaps and inconsistencies.

Request for a Stay

Andy also sought a stay based on the later Trinidadian lawsuit. The Court considered factors relevant to staying a case in favor of a foreign proceeding, including the similarity of the issues, which case was filed first, the adequacy of the other forum, possible prejudice, convenience, and each country’s connection to the litigation. The Court noted that it had previously denied Andy’s motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens on September 6, 2018.

The Court found that a stay would serve no principles of comity, would severely prejudice Jenny, and would undermine U.S. interests because substantial time and resources had already been spent in the case and liability had been determined.

Disposition

The Court ordered that Andy’s motion for reconsideration and for a stay be DENIED. It also directed the Clerk of Court to close the open motions at docket entries 232, 234, 235, 236, and 238. This order addressed Andy’s requests for reconsideration and a stay; it did not revisit the September 2019 sanctions and default judgment.