Stone v. Fisher
- Jesse Furman
- 1:20-cv-01818
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Stone v. Fisher, Judge Furman granted Fisher’s summary-judgment motion because Stone’s claims were barred by a signed release.
Patrick Stone’s claims against Joseph Fisher were dismissed; Stone was also denied permission to appeal without paying fees.
What happened
In Stone v. Fisher, Patrick Stone sued Joseph Fisher, and Fisher asked the court to grant summary judgment. The court held that Stone’s claims were barred by a release Stone signed on February 27, 2020.
Stone argued that due-process concerns prevented the court from deciding Fisher’s motion because orders from an Illinois family court restricted what he could disclose. The court rejected that argument, finding that the orders did not prevent Stone from addressing the release’s legal effect. The court also noted that Stone did not use a procedure allowing a party to explain why necessary facts could not be presented.
Judge Jesse M. Furman granted Fisher’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Stone’s complaint. The court also denied Stone permission to appeal without paying fees, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Stone v. Fisher · No. 1:20-cv-01818
- Jesse Furman
- Sept. 2, 2021
Background
Patrick Stone brought claims against Joseph Fisher. Fisher moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to enter judgment without a trial when the record shows that the moving party is entitled to judgment. The court reviewed the parties’ motion papers.
Release
The court concluded that Stone’s claims were barred by a written release that Stone signed on February 27, 2020. The release stated that Stone released and permanently discharged Fisher from all claims and related rights of any kind, whether known or unknown, that Stone had or might have against Fisher through the date of signing.
Stone’s due-process argument
Stone’s only stated argument was that the court could not grant Fisher’s motion because an Illinois family court had issued what Stone described as a constitutionally defective gag order and a protective order. Those orders restricted Stone from disclosing matters concerning finances, income, property, prior employment, and agreements involving possible payments. The court determined that the orders did not prevent Stone from addressing the legal effect of the release, which the court said required consideration of the release and Stone’s complaint.
The court also rejected Stone’s position because he had been able to file the complaint and a request to proceed without paying filing fees. In addition, the court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) provided a possible procedure for a party who cannot present facts needed to oppose summary judgment: the party may submit an affidavit or declaration explaining the specific reasons. Stone did not do so.
Ruling
Judge Jesse M. Furman granted Fisher’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Stone’s complaint. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied Stone permission to appeal without paying fees. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion and close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.