Belya v. Kapral
- Victor Marrero
- 1:20-cv-06597
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Belya v. Kapral, Judge Marrero denied defendants’ motions to reconsider and seek an early appeal, ordering an answer within seven days.
The defendants’ motions were denied, and the defendants were ordered to file an answer to the amended complaint within seven days. The prior denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss remained in place.
What happened
In Belya v. Kapral, the defendants asked the court to reconsider its earlier decision denying their motion to dismiss the amended complaint. They also asked permission to seek an immediate appeal before the case was finished.
The court denied both motions. It ruled that the reconsideration request was filed too late under the applicable local rule. It also found that the defendants had not shown a sufficient legal disagreement to justify an immediate appeal.
Judge Victor Marrero ordered the defendants to file their answer to the amended complaint within seven days of the order.
The detailed version
- Belya v. Kapral · No. 1:20-cv-06597
- Victor Marrero
- July 6, 2021
Background
The defendants filed two motions concerning the court’s May 19, 2021 decision denying their motion to dismiss. The first was a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) asking the court to alter or amend the prior decision. The second asked the court to certify that decision for an interlocutory appeal, meaning an appeal before the district-court case is concluded.
Reconsideration motion
The court denied the motion to alter or amend. It explained that Rule 59(e) applies to a final judgment, and no judgment had been entered. The motion therefore should have been filed under Southern District of New York Local Rule 6.3, which requires a reconsideration motion within 14 days after the court’s decision on the original motion. Because the defendants filed their motion 28 days after the May 19 decision, the court found it untimely.
The court also stated in a footnote that, even though it did not need to reach the merits, it was persuaded that the reconsideration motion was meritless. The court said the motion did not concisely identify matters or controlling decisions that had been overlooked and instead attempted to relitigate issues or present new theories.
Certification for interlocutory appeal
The court also denied the certification motion. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), certification requires a controlling legal question, substantial grounds for disagreement about that question, and the likelihood that an immediate appeal would materially advance the end of the litigation. The court found no substantial ground for disagreement about the controlling legal doctrines—the ministerial exception and ecclesiastical abstention. It characterized the defendants’ arguments as disputes about whether the facts fit those doctrines, rather than disagreements about the governing legal standards, and concluded that those factual disputes did not justify an interlocutory appeal.
Order
The court ordered that the defendants’ motion to alter or amend the May 19 decision was DENIED and that their motion to certify the May 19 decision for interlocutory appeal was DENIED. The court also directed the defendants to file their answer to the amended complaint within seven days of the order.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.