Walsh v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc.
- Judith McCarthy
- 7:19-cv-08966
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Walsh v. Caliber Home Loans, Judge Halpern denied reconsideration, leaving Defendant’s motion to dismiss denied and requiring an answer.
Caliber Home Loans, Inc.’s request to reconsider the prior denial of its motion to dismiss was denied. Kevin R. Walsh’s claims remained pending, and Caliber was ordered to answer the complaint.
What happened
In Walsh v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., Kevin R. Walsh sued his former employer over alleged breach of contract, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, but the court previously denied that motion because the defendant did not follow a local rule about submitting exhibits.
Caliber Home Loans asked the court to reconsider that denial, arguing that the court had made a clear error. Walsh opposed the request. The court concluded that the local rule involved more than formatting and that enforcing it was proper. The court also said that, even if it considered the improperly submitted exhibits, the complaint was sufficient to survive dismissal and the exhibits were not decisive.
Judge Halpern denied the motion for reconsideration. The defendant was directed to answer the complaint by March 5, 2021, and the initial pretrial conference was postponed.
The detailed version
- Walsh v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc. · No. 7:19-cv-08966
- Judith McCarthy
- Feb. 18, 2021
Background
Kevin R. Walsh brought claims against his former employer, Caliber Home Loans, Inc., for breach of contract, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. Walsh originally filed the action in New York state court on August 16, 2019.
Caliber moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legal claim. On January 13, 2021, the court denied that motion because Caliber had not complied with Southern District of New York Local Civil Rule 7.1. That rule required supporting exhibits to be attached to a supporting affidavit rather than to the memorandum of law.
Motion for reconsideration
Caliber moved for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 83(a)(2). Reconsideration is available only in limited circumstances, such as an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error that would cause serious unfairness. The court explained that reconsideration is not a means to repeat arguments that the court has already decided.
Caliber argued that the court had committed clear error by denying the motion to dismiss based on the filing-rule violation. The court disagreed. It held that Local Civil Rule 7.1 was not merely a formatting requirement; the rule helps the court properly evaluate documents submitted in support of or opposition to a motion. The court therefore concluded that denying the motion to dismiss for noncompliance was appropriate.
The court added that, even if it considered the exhibits attached to Caliber’s memorandum, it would still deny the motion to dismiss. Based on the complaint’s allegations, the applicable pleading standards, and ambiguities and conflicts in the submitted documents, the court found that Walsh’s pleading was sufficient to proceed past the dismissal stage. The court said the exhibits were not dispositive and that the issues they raised would be more appropriately considered, if at all, at the summary-judgment stage.
Disposition
Judge Halpern denied Caliber’s motion for reconsideration. The court directed Caliber to file its answer by March 5, 2021, adjourned the initial pretrial conference to March 15, 2021, and instructed the Clerk to terminate Docs. 24 and 28.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.