Kosachuk v. Selective Advisors Group, LLC
- Denise Cote
- 1:19-cv-04844
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Kosachuk v. Selective Advisors Group, LLC, Judge Cote dismissed the action as untimely after remand from the Second Circuit.
Chris Kosachuk’s action was dismissed as untimely; NLG, LLC was identified as an intervenor, and Selective Advisors Group, LLC was the defendant.
What happened
Kosachuk v. Selective Advisors Group, LLC concerned Chris Kosachuk’s effort to void a New York state-court judgment that he claimed was obtained through fraud. NLG, LLC was an intervenor.
The Second Circuit partly vacated and partly affirmed the earlier dismissal, and sent the case back with instructions to dismiss it as untimely. The earlier dismissal had relied on lack of jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine or, alternatively, the statute of limitations.
Judge Denise Cote dismissed the action and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. She ruled that Kosachuk knew about the February 2012 state-court judgment by at least March 13, 2013, but did not file this federal action until May 24, 2019, after the limitations period had expired.
The detailed version
- Kosachuk v. Selective Advisors Group, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-04844
- Denise Cote
- Oct. 14, 2020
Background
Chris Kosachuk brought this action against Selective Advisors Group, LLC. NLG, LLC was an intervenor. Kosachuk sought to void a New York state-court judgment entered in February 2012, alleging that the judgment was fraudulently obtained.
Earlier Proceedings
In a September 30, 2019 opinion, the court granted Selective Advisors Group’s motion to dismiss. It held that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine or, alternatively, that the action was time-barred. The court later denied Kosachuk’s motion for reconsideration.
On September 15, 2020, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the September 30 dismissal in part and affirmed it in part. The Court of Appeals remanded the action with instructions to dismiss it as untimely. The mandate returning jurisdiction to the district court issued on October 8, 2020.
Limitations Analysis
The district court applied New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 213(8), which requires an action based on fraud to be filed by the later of six years after the claim accrued or two years after the plaintiff discovered, or reasonably could have discovered, the fraud.
The court found that Kosachuk was aware of the state-court judgment by at least March 13, 2013. He filed this action on May 24, 2019, after the applicable limitations period had expired. The court therefore concluded that the action was time-barred.
Disposition
Judge Denise Cote ordered that the action be dismissed and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.