Bromfield v. Bronx Lebanon Special Care Center, Inc.
- Sarah Cave
- 1:16-cv-10047
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Bromfield v. Bronx Lebanon, Judge Cave denied Lenora Bromfield’s motion to reconsider an earlier order limiting pro bono counsel to settlement negotiations.
Lenora Bromfield’s request for reconsideration and broader pro bono representation was denied; the order did not decide the merits of her discrimination claims.
What happened
Bromfield v. Bronx Lebanon Special Care Center, Inc. concerns Lenora Bromfield’s request to reconsider an earlier order that granted her pro bono counsel for settlement negotiations only. The earlier order was later vacated after potential pro bono counsel reported that Bromfield had not responded to outreach.
Bromfield argued that the earlier order misstated facts, overlooked evidence, and failed to consider her written response to the defendants. She also sought pro bono counsel for matters beyond settlement negotiations, including continued discovery, and argued that her discrimination claims were ready for a jury.
Judge Sarah L. Cave denied the motion. The court found that Bromfield repeated arguments and relied on evidence it had already considered, without showing overlooked controlling law or facts, new evidence, or exceptional circumstances warranting reconsideration.
The detailed version
- Bromfield v. Bronx Lebanon Special Care Center, Inc. · No. 1:16-cv-10047
- Sarah Cave
- Nov. 23, 2020
Background
Lenora Bromfield moved for reconsideration of an August 6, 2020 amended opinion and order concerning her application for pro bono counsel. That earlier order granted her request for pro bono counsel for the limited purpose of settlement negotiations. It also advised that an attorney might not agree to take the case and that Bromfield should be prepared to proceed without an attorney. The court later vacated that earlier order after being informed that Bromfield had not responded to outreach from potential pro bono counsel.
Bromfield asked the court to rescind or vacate the earlier order and to permit pro bono counsel to represent her beyond settlement negotiations. She argued that the earlier order misstated important facts in her amended complaint, overlooked documentary exhibits, and failed to consider her reply to the defendants’ answer. She also argued that her claims had merit, were ready for a jury trial, and required additional discovery.
Legal Standard
The court applied Local Civil Rule 6.3 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Rule 60(b) permits relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct, a void judgment, satisfaction or reversal of a judgment, or another reason justifying relief. The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy available only in exceptional circumstances. Generally, the moving party must identify controlling decisions or information that the court overlooked and that could reasonably change its conclusion. Reconsideration is not a chance to repeat arguments already rejected or present new arguments that could have been made earlier.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that Bromfield had not shown that any Rule 60(b) ground applied. Her motion repeated arguments from her amended complaint and earlier applications for pro bono counsel. She did not identify controlling decisions or information that the court had overlooked when it limited pro bono counsel’s role to settlement negotiations.
The court also found that Bromfield presented no new evidence or information. The exhibits she cited had previously been submitted and considered. Her arguments that she was wrongfully terminated, had a case that could succeed, and needed counsel for more discovery therefore did not satisfy the standard for reconsideration.
The court acknowledged that its earlier order had found that Bromfield met the required merits threshold for at least some claims and had granted her fourth application for pro bono counsel under the standard governing such requests. But because that earlier order had already been vacated after Bromfield’s lack of response to potential counsel, the court found no need to reconsider it and no showing of clear error, manifest injustice, or unfairness.
Disposition
The court denied Bromfield’s motion for reconsideration. It directed the Clerk of Court to mail her a copy of the order.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.