Komatsu v. The City of New York
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:18-cv-03698
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Komatsu v. The City of New York, Judge Schofield denied Komatsu’s repeated requests to reconsider earlier orders.
Towaki Komatsu’s requests for reconsideration were denied; the defendants and the court’s prior orders were left unaffected by any change in this order.
What happened
Komatsu v. The City of New York concerns several letters from Towaki Komatsu asking the court to reconsider earlier rulings, including a ruling partially granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The court explained that reconsideration is allowed only for an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error or manifest injustice. The court found that Komatsu’s requests did not meet that strict standard.
Judge Schofield denied the requests to reconsider the earlier orders and a magistrate judge’s order. She also denied the requests to reconsider the August 10, 2020 order that had previously denied reconsideration. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Komatsu, who was representing himself.
The detailed version
- Komatsu v. The City of New York · No. 1:18-cv-03698
- Lorna Schofield
- Sept. 10, 2020
Background
Towaki Komatsu filed several letters seeking reconsideration of prior orders. The challenged orders included:
- The March 1, 2019 order denying Komatsu’s motion to amend the complaint; - The September 30, 2019 order granting in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss; - Judge Gorenstein’s July 28, 2020 order; and - The August 10, 2020 order denying earlier requests for reconsideration.
Komatsu’s later letters referred to remarks by New York Chief Judge Janet DiFiore and reports obtained through a Freedom of Information Law request.
Legal standard
The court stated that a motion for reconsideration should be granted only when the moving party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. The court described this as a strict standard that generally requires the party to identify controlling decisions or information the court overlooked.
Ruling
The court denied the requests to reconsider the orders at Dockets 118 and 239 and Judge Gorenstein’s order at Docket 405, for substantially the same reasons given in the August 10, 2020 order. The court separately denied the requests to reconsider the August 10 order because the letters did not identify an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice.
The Clerk of Court was directed to mail a copy of the order to Komatsu, who was proceeding without a lawyer.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.