Komatsu v. The City of New York
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:18-cv-03698
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Komatsu v. City of New York, Judge Schofield denied reconsideration, overruled an objection, denied equitable tolling as moot, and denied recusal.
The order affected Towaki Komatsu, who was proceeding without a lawyer, and the City of New York and other defendants whose earlier motion to dismiss had been granted in part. It also upheld a magistrate judge’s ruling concerning amendment of the complaint.
What happened
In Komatsu v. The City of New York, Towaki Komatsu asked the court to reconsider two earlier orders, including one denying leave to amend the complaint and another granting part of the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Komatsu also objected to Magistrate Judge Gorenstein’s denial of his request to file another amended complaint. He argued that the prior rulings were not in his interest and lacked a legal or factual basis. He also alleged judicial misconduct and requested reassignment of the case.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied the reconsideration motions because they were untimely and did not identify a legal change, new evidence, clear error, or serious injustice. She overruled the objection, denied the request to extend the amendment deadline as moot, and denied the recusal motion.
The detailed version
- Komatsu v. The City of New York · No. 1:18-cv-03698
- Lorna Schofield
- Aug. 10, 2020
Background
Towaki Komatsu, proceeding without a lawyer, filed letters seeking reconsideration of two earlier orders: the March 1, 2019 order denying his motion to amend the complaint, and the September 30, 2019 order granting in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. He later filed another letter again requesting reconsideration of the September order.
Komatsu also objected to Magistrate Judge Gorenstein’s July 28, 2020 order denying his motion to file a further amended complaint. The district court explained that motions to amend are nondispositive matters, meaning they are not generally case-ending, and that such a ruling may be changed only if it is clearly erroneous, contrary to law, or an abuse of discretion.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that reconsideration is available only when the moving party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent serious injustice. Local Civil Rule 6.3 also requires a reconsideration motion to be filed within fourteen days after the original decision.
The court found that Komatsu’s motions were untimely, which independently required denial. It also found that his arguments did not identify any change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or serious injustice that would support reconsideration.
The court upheld Judge Gorenstein’s denial of leave to amend. Judge Gorenstein had granted Komatsu four extensions, moving the deadline from March 16, 2020, to May 1, May 27, June 17, and July 20. The final extension stated that there would be no further extensions. The court found that Komatsu’s proposed submission did not provide the required short and plain statement of his claims and did not follow the format required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and prior court orders. The court concluded that this ruling was not clearly erroneous, contrary to law, or an abuse of discretion.
Komatsu also alleged repeated judicial misconduct by Judge Gorenstein and Judge Schofield and requested reassignment. The court treated that request as a motion asking Judge Schofield to step aside. It denied the motion because the letter did not make a legally sufficient allegation supporting recusal. The court also denied as moot Komatsu’s request for extra time to file a further amended complaint.
Disposition
The court denied the motions for reconsideration of the March and September orders. It overruled Komatsu’s objection to Judge Gorenstein’s July 28, 2020 order, denied as moot the request for equitable tolling of the amendment deadline, and denied the motion for recusal. The Clerk was directed to mail a copy of the order to Komatsu.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.