Abraham v. Leigh
- Katherine Failla
- 1:17-cv-05429
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Abraham v. Leigh, Judge Failla denied Robyn Abraham’s motion to reconsider sanctions and fees, citing untimeliness and lack of new grounds.
Robyn Abraham, whose motion to reconsider the sanctions decision and the attorneys’ fees-and-costs order was denied.
What happened
In Abraham v. Leigh, Robyn Abraham asked the court to reconsider an October 2019 decision sanctioning her and a September 2020 order requiring her to pay attorneys’ fees and costs.
The court said Abraham filed too late under the applicable 14-day deadline and gave no justification for the delay. It also found that she presented no new evidence or change in controlling law and repeated arguments the court had already rejected.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied the motion for reconsideration as to both the sanctions decision and the order imposing fees and costs.
The detailed version
- Abraham v. Leigh · No. 1:17-cv-05429
- Katherine Failla
- Oct. 1, 2020
Background
Robyn Abraham moved for reconsideration of two earlier rulings: the Court’s October 22, 2019 oral decision sanctioning her, and its September 14, 2020 Opinion and Order imposing attorneys’ fees and costs on her. The opinion’s footnote states that the sanctions concerned fabricating documents and giving false testimony, and that the fees and costs were imposed because of that sanctioned conduct.
Legal standard
Under Local Civil Rule 6.3, a motion for reconsideration must be served within 14 days after the court’s determination of the original motion. Reconsideration is an exceptional remedy. The moving party must identify controlling legal authority or factual information that the court overlooked and that could reasonably change its decision. The court explained that reconsideration may be justified by an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or the need to prevent manifest injustice. It is not a way to repeat previously rejected arguments or obtain another opportunity to litigate the matter.
Court’s analysis
The Court held that Abraham’s motion concerning the October 22, 2019 decision was filed nearly a year after that decision, far beyond the 14-day deadline. Abraham offered no justification for the delay, which the Court treated as an independent reason to deny reconsideration.
The Court also found that the motion lacked merit. Abraham identified no new evidence or change in controlling law. Instead, she repeated conspiracy theories about her former counsel that she had previously presented and that the Court had already found unsupported by the factual record. The Court likewise said that her argument concerning the withdrawal of Defendants Honig and Wasserman had already been considered and rejected. The opinion mentions one theory concerning Abraham’s participation in federal litigation in Florida more than 20 years earlier, but states that the theory was irrelevant to the sanctions and fee decisions even if true.
As to the September 14, 2020 order imposing attorneys’ fees and costs, the Court found that Abraham offered no independent basis for reconsideration. Because the Court declined to reconsider the sanctions decision and Abraham provided no additional reason to revisit the fees and costs, the Court also denied reconsideration of that order.
Disposition
The Court denied Abraham’s motion for reconsideration of both the October 22, 2019 sanctions decision and the September 14, 2020 Opinion and Order imposing attorneys’ fees and costs.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.