Otrompke v. The First Department Committee on Character and Fitness
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-03839
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Otrompke v. The First Department Committee, Judge Stanton denied Otrompke’s request to reconsider dismissal of his bar-admission lawsuit.
The ruling denies John Otrompke relief from the earlier dismissal of his lawsuit concerning admission to the New York State Bar.
What happened
John Otrompke, representing himself, sued about his admission to the New York State Bar. The court had dismissed his lawsuit because he had not shown that he suffered an actual injury allowing him to bring the case.
Otrompke asked the court to reconsider and change that dismissal, and also sought relief under a federal rule for correcting judgments. He argued that he had effectively been denied a required hearing, but the court noted that his bar-application materials were incomplete because they lacked an affirmation from a lawyer for whom he had worked in 2010.
Judge Stanton denied the motion. He concluded that Otrompke had not shown that the court overlooked controlling law or facts, or that any other listed reason justified changing the judgment. The clerk was directed to terminate the other motions.
The detailed version
- Otrompke v. The First Department Committee on Character and Fitness · No. 1:20-cv-03839
- Louis Stanton
- Nov. 5, 2020
Background
John Otrompke filed this action without a lawyer concerning his admission to the New York State Bar. On July 23, 2020, the court dismissed the complaint because Otrompke had not alleged facts showing an actual injury. The court concluded that he therefore lacked standing—the legal requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete injury—and that there was no case or controversy within the court’s jurisdiction.
On August 6, 2020, Otrompke moved to reconsider and to change or vacate the judgment. He also asked for more time to seek reconsideration, but the court stated that the request was timely and that an extension was unnecessary. The court treated the submission as also seeking relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which permits relief from a judgment for specified reasons.
Court’s analysis
For reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3, the court explained that Otrompke had to show that it overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented. The court found that he had not made that showing.
Otrompke claimed that he had effectively been refused a required hearing on his bar-admission application. The court stated, however, that the application was incomplete because it lacked an affirmation from a lawyer for whom Otrompke had worked in 2010. The court cited a New York Court of Appeals rule requiring a completed application before a hearing could be scheduled. Because there was no ripe case or controversy within the court’s jurisdiction, the court denied relief under Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3.
The court also denied relief under Rule 60(b). It found that Otrompke had not alleged facts supporting any of the first five grounds listed in that rule, such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct, or a void judgment. The court separately denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), finding no extraordinary circumstances warranting that relief.
Disposition
The court denied Otrompke’s motion for reconsideration. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate any other motions. The opinion does not state that the motion was denied with or without prejudice.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.