Sabeniano v. Citibank, N.A. New York
- Alison Nathan
- 1:16-cv-01723-AJN
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Sabeniano v. Citibank, Judge Nathan denied a self-represented motion seeking to enforce a Philippine judgment because it violated a filing injunction.
The order directly affected Modesta R. Sabeniano by denying her motion, continuing to enforce the filing injunction against unauthorized efforts to enforce a Philippine judgment, and warning of additional sanctions. It also affected the defendants, who were protected from further unauthorized motions or actions seeking enforcement of that judgment.
What happened
Sabeniano v. Citibank, N.A. New York concerns a self-represented plaintiff’s motion asking the court to recognize and enforce a Philippine judgment. Earlier orders had warned that further frivolous or vexatious filings could lead to a filing injunction.
The court had barred Modesta R. Sabeniano from filing motions or starting actions against the defendants to enforce a Philippine judgment without first obtaining permission. Her October 30, 2020 motion sought recognition and enforcement of a Philippine Supreme Court judgment, but it did not obtain the required permission.
Judge Alison J. Nathan denied the motion because it violated the filing injunction. The court also said it would deny the motion for the same reasons given in earlier orders and because the reconsideration request was untimely. The court warned that future unauthorized filings could lead to additional sanctions and denied permission to appeal without paying court fees.
The detailed version
- Sabeniano v. Citibank, N.A. New York · No. 1:16-cv-01723-AJN
- Alison Nathan
- Nov. 19, 2020
Background
Modesta R. Sabeniano, who was representing herself, filed a motion on October 30, 2020, titled “Manifestation & Motion for Reconsideration Aug. 14, 2020 Order w/ Urgent PLEA to Leave of Court the Recognition and Enforcement 18 Years.” The motion asked the court to recognize and enforce a judgment from the Philippines.
The court had previously warned Sabeniano that further frivolous or vexatious filings against the defendants could result in a filing injunction. In an earlier order, the court denied Sabeniano’s motion under Rule 60(b) as untimely and granted the defendants’ request for a filing injunction. That injunction barred Sabeniano from filing motions or starting actions against the defendants to enforce any judgment from the Philippines without first obtaining the court’s permission, whether or not she paid the filing fee or requested permission to proceed without paying it.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that the October 30 motion was another request to enforce a Philippine judgment and therefore violated the filing injunction. The court denied the motion on that basis without reaching its merits. It added that, if it had reached the merits, it would have denied the motion for the reasons stated in its September 1, 2017 memorandum and order and its August 14, 2020 order. The court also stated that the motion raised no new grounds and was untimely under Southern District of New York Local Rule 6.3, which requires a motion for reconsideration to be served within 14 days after the court’s decision on the original motion.
Disposition
The court denied Sabeniano’s motion. It warned that future filings made without permission would result in additional sanctions and stated that any request for permission to file more documents had to be made in a letter of no more than one page. The court also stated that it would not consider further motions to enforce the judgment under the filing injunction.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing costs. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Sabeniano and record that mailing on the public docket.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.