Brady v. IGS Realty Co. L.P.

Background

The opinion concerns Brady’s motions asking the court to reconsider its September 8, 2020 decision dismissing his claims in two related federal actions. Brady proceeded without a lawyer. The first action challenged a New York state-court judgment concerning personal guarantees connected to corporate leases and alleged a conspiracy involving participants in that litigation. The second action sought federal review of claims Brady had brought in an earlier state-court case against Mark S. Friedlander and alleged a conspiracy involving participants in that case.

The September 8 decision had adopted a report and recommendation by Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang. It concluded that most of Brady’s claims were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prevents federal district courts from reviewing final state-court judgments; collateral estoppel, which prevents relitigation of issues already decided; and res judicata, which generally prevents relitigation of claims resolved in an earlier case. The court also concluded that any remaining claims were untimely and independently failed to state a claim for relief.

Legal standard

The court explained that reconsideration is permitted only in limited circumstances, such as an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent serious injustice. A reconsideration motion is not an opportunity to repeat arguments the court previously rejected or raise arguments that could have been made earlier.

IGS Realty II motion

Brady identified 19 alleged errors in the September 8 decision. His principal argument was that the jury verdict form in the earlier state-court case did not require findings on each defense concerning the validity of his personal guarantees. He argued that the federal doctrines cited by the court therefore could not bar his claims. He also challenged a jury instruction, asserted that defendants had admitted the guarantees were void, disputed the significance of the state-court appeal, challenged the denial of declaratory relief, and argued that he should have been allowed to replead.

The court rejected these arguments and held that they did not justify reconsideration. It reasoned that, whether or not the state court properly instructed the jury or the jury addressed every defense, Brady’s requested relief would require the federal court to review and reverse the state-court judgment. The court stated that this is precisely what the Rooker-Feldman doctrine forbids. It also found that other arguments were irrelevant or repeated arguments previously rejected. The court denied Brady’s motion to reconsider the dismissal of his claims in IGS Realty II and separately denied his request for leave to replead.

Friedlander II motion

Brady made one principal argument regarding the dismissal of his claims in Friedlander II: that the state-court decision ending his earlier case against Friedlander had not adequately resolved that action. He asked the federal court to continue or take over the state-court case.

The court found that this repeated arguments already rejected in the September 8 decision. It held that taking over the state-court case or reviewing the state court’s decision was impermissible. The court therefore denied Brady’s motion to reconsider the dismissal of his claims in Friedlander II.

Disposition

The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the two pending motions, one in each case. The cases remain closed. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer signed the order.