Moskovits v. Bank of America N.A.
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-10537
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Moskovits v. Bank of America N.A., Judge Stanton denied reconsideration of the dismissal and denied other pending motions as moot.
The order affected pro se plaintiff Alexander Moskovits by leaving the earlier dismissal in place; it also denied his other outstanding motions as moot and closed the case.
What happened
In Moskovits v. Bank of America N.A., Alexander Moskovits, who represented himself, asked the court to reconsider its earlier dismissal of his case. The court had dismissed the action for failure to state a claim and on immunity grounds.
Moskovits also asked for summary judgment concerning an alleged ministerial act and sought permission to serve the summons and amended complaint by email. The court treated his filings as requests to alter or amend the judgment, for reconsideration under a local rule, and alternatively for relief from the judgment. It found that he had not shown that the court overlooked controlling law or relevant facts, and had not shown grounds for relief under the applicable rule.
Judge Louis L. Stanton denied the motion for reconsideration. He also denied all other outstanding motions as moot, closed the case, and directed that only documents addressed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals would be accepted for filing in the case.
The detailed version
- Moskovits v. Bank of America N.A. · No. 1:20-cv-10537
- Louis Stanton
- Apr. 5, 2021
Background
Alexander Moskovits filed the action without a lawyer. After allowing him to amend his complaint, the court dismissed the action on March 12, 2021, for failure to state a claim and on immunity grounds.
On March 13, Moskovits filed a motion and corrected motion for summary judgment concerning an alleged ministerial act by Judge Ostrager that he said was directed by court administration. He also filed a motion seeking permission to serve the summons and verified amended complaint by email. On March 19, he filed a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and alternatively under Rule 60(b).
Court’s Analysis
The court liberally construed the filings as a motion under Rule 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment, a motion under Local Civil Rule 6.3 for reconsideration, and, alternatively, a motion under Rule 60(b) for relief from a judgment or order.
For Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3, the court explained that the movant must show that the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented. The court found no facts in Moskovits’s submissions showing that it had overlooked such law or facts. It therefore denied the motion under Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3.
The court also denied relief under Rule 60(b). It found that Moskovits had not shown that any of the grounds in the first five parts of that rule applied, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct, a void judgment, or satisfaction or changed circumstances concerning the judgment. The court separately found that he had not shown the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under Rule 60(b)(6).
Disposition
The court denied Moskovits’s motion for reconsideration. It denied all other outstanding motions as moot and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate them. The court closed the case under docket number 20-CV-10537 and directed that it would accept only documents addressed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The order was signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.