Peterec-Tolino v. Ace American Insurance Co.

Background

John L. Peterec-Tolino filed the action without a lawyer against the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board, private attorneys, law firms, medical examiners, and other named and unnamed defendants. He alleged violations of his constitutional rights and asserted state-law claims.

On September 1, 2020, the court dismissed the federal claims. It held that the Workers’ Compensation Board had immunity under the Eleventh Amendment from suit in federal court. It also held that the remaining defendants were private parties who were not state actors and therefore could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute used to sue state actors. After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—and dismissed those claims without prejudice to refiling them in state court. Judgment was entered and the case was closed.

Plaintiff’s Submissions

After judgment, Peterec-Tolino submitted proposed second and third amended complaints. The court treated those submissions as motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment, motions for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3, and, alternatively, motions under Rule 60(b) for relief from the judgment or order.

Peterec-Tolino argued, among other things, that the proposed second amended complaint showed that defendants’ statements were fraudulent. He asserted that a medical examiner’s statement that he was willing to testify violated his Sixth Amendment rights. Much of the proposed second amended complaint addressed whether he had misrepresented or concealed prior injuries in communications with the insurer or in the workers’ compensation matter. The court stated that it could not review the Workers’ Compensation Board’s determination because a federal district court does not have appellate jurisdiction over state-court judgments.

As to the proposed third amended complaint, the court found no basis to reopen the case. Peterec-Tolino did not identify a reason for receiving permission to amend under Rule 15(a), and the court stated that the proposed complaint merely added or changed details. The court also explained that an amended complaint replaces the earlier complaint rather than supplementing it. Finally, the proposed third amended complaint did not undermine the earlier rulings concerning the Board’s immunity and the private status of the other defendants.

Court’s Analysis

A Rule 59(e) motion and a Local Civil Rule 6.3 reconsideration motion require the movant to show that the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented. The court emphasized that these motions are narrowly applied and cannot be used simply to repeat arguments or introduce new theories after an unfavorable ruling.

Under Rule 60(b), relief from a judgment may be available for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct by an opposing party, a void judgment, satisfaction or reversal of the judgment, or another reason that justifies relief. The court found that Peterec-Tolino had not alleged facts showing that any of the first five grounds applied. It also denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), which requires a reason outside the other listed grounds and extraordinary circumstances warranting relief.

Disposition

The court denied the Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3 motions for reconsideration. It also denied the Rule 60(b) motions, including the request under Rule 60(b)(6), and denied reopening the case to permit the proposed second and third amended complaints. The matter remained closed. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Peterec-Tolino and record service on the docket.