In Re: Kossoff PLLC
- James Oetken
- 1:21-cv-09938
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In re: Kossoff PLLC, Judge Oetken denied Mitchell H. Kossoff’s motions to reconsider dismissal of his bankruptcy appeal as moot.
Mitchell H. Kossoff and the parties to the two appeals.
What happened
In re: Kossoff PLLC involved Mitchell H. Kossoff’s emergency request to pause a Bankruptcy Court decision concerning contempt if he did not make required filings by November 30, 2021. The District Court denied that request on December 2, 2021.
On December 21, 2021, the District Court dismissed the appeals as moot and directed the Clerk of Court to close the cases. Kossoff then asked the court to reconsider those orders.
Judge J. Paul Oetken denied the reconsideration motions. He concluded that Kossoff had not shown that the court overlooked controlling law or made a clear legal error, and stated that the Bankruptcy Court had not abused its discretion or erred in holding him in contempt.
The detailed version
- In Re: Kossoff PLLC · No. 1:21-cv-09938
- James Oetken
- Jan. 11, 2022
Background
Mitchell H. Kossoff appealed a Bankruptcy Court decision ordering that he be held in contempt if he failed to make appropriate filings by November 30, 2021. He initially sought an emergency order staying, or pausing, that decision. On December 2, 2021, the District Court denied his request.
On December 21, 2021, the District Court entered orders dismissing the appeals as moot and directing the Clerk of Court to close the cases. Kossoff then moved for reconsideration of those orders.
Court’s Analysis
The court denied the motions for reconsideration for the reasons given in the appellee’s opposition brief. It also stated that Kossoff had not shown that the court overlooked controlling legal decisions or made a clear error of law. The court further concluded that the Bankruptcy Court had not abused its discretion or erred in holding Kossoff in contempt.
Disposition
The court denied both motions for reconsideration and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motions at Docket Numbers 9 and 12 in the two cases. The opinion text states that it was dated January 11, 2021, while the supplied case metadata lists January 11, 2022.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.