Sabeniano v. Citibank, N.A. New York
- Alison Nathan
- 1:16-cv-01723-AJN
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Sabeniano v. Citibank, Judge Nathan denied Modesta R. Sabeniano’s request to file another motion enforcing a Philippines judgment.
The order directly affected Modesta R. Sabeniano by denying her permission to file another motion to enforce the judgment from the Philippines. It also maintained restrictions on future filings against the defendants concerning that judgment and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
What happened
In Modesta R. Sabeniano v. Citibank, N.A., New York, et al., the court received a letter from Sabeniano, who was representing herself, and treated it as a request for permission to file another motion to enforce a judgment from the Philippines.
The court had previously barred Sabeniano from filing motions or starting actions against the defendants to enforce that judgment without first obtaining permission. It said the new request raised no new grounds and that any new request to reconsider would be too late.
The court denied permission to file the motion and said it would not consider new motions to enforce the judgment. Judge Alison J. Nathan also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Sabeniano v. Citibank, N.A. New York · No. 1:16-cv-01723-AJN
- Alison Nathan
- Dec. 8, 2020
Background
On December 7, 2020, the court received a letter from Modesta R. Sabeniano, who was representing herself. The court construed the letter as a request for permission to file another motion against the defendants to enforce a judgment from the Philippines.
The court described several earlier rulings. In September 2017, it warned Sabeniano that additional frivolous or vexatious filings could result in an order restricting future filings. The court repeated that warning in October 2017. In 2019, Sabeniano filed a motion asking the court to provide relief from an earlier judgment or order under Rule 60(b). The court denied that motion 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 a judgment from the Philippines without first obtaining permission from the court, regardless of whether she paid the filing fee or requested fee-free status. The court also stated that it denied a later motion for reconsideration filed in October 2020.
Present Request
The court denied the present request for permission to file a motion to enforce the foreign judgment for the same reasons stated in its earlier orders. It also found that the request raised no new grounds. In addition, the court stated that any new motion for reconsideration would be untimely under Southern District of New York Local Rule 6.3, which requires such a motion to be served within fourteen days after the court’s determination of the original motion.
Ruling
The court denied Sabeniano’s request for leave to file a motion to enforce the foreign judgment. It advised that it would not entertain any new motions to enforce the judgment because it had ruled on the matter multiple times. The clerk was directed to mail the order to Sabeniano and record that mailing on the public docket.
Judge Alison J. Nathan certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. The court therefore denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.