In Re: Kossoff PLLC
- James Oetken
- 1:21-cv-09924
- 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 moot appeals.
Mitchell H. Kossoff and the two appeals identified in the Kossoff PLLC matter.
What happened
In Re: Kossoff PLLC involved Mitchell H. Kossoff’s request to reconsider orders that closed two cases and dismissed his appeals as moot. He had asked the court to pause a Bankruptcy Court order concerning possible contempt if he did not make required filings by November 30, 2021.
The District Court denied his emergency motions to stay the Bankruptcy Court’s decision on December 2, 2021. On December 21, 2021, the court dismissed the cases as moot. Kossoff then moved for reconsideration.
Judge James Oetken denied both reconsideration motions. The court said Kossoff had not shown that it 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 Clerk was directed to close the reconsideration motions.
The detailed version
- In Re: Kossoff PLLC · No. 1:21-cv-09924
- James Oetken
- Jan. 11, 2022
Background
Mitchell H. Kossoff, identified as the appellant, had filed emergency motions seeking a stay of a Bankruptcy Court decision. That decision ordered that he could be held in contempt if he failed to make appropriate filings by November 30, 2021. The District Court denied the stay motions on December 2, 2021.
On December 21, 2021, the District Court entered orders dismissing the two cases as moot and directing the Clerk of Court to close the cases. Kossoff then moved for reconsideration of those orders. The opinion refers to an opposition brief filed by the appellee but does not identify the appellee by name.
Court’s reasoning
The court denied reconsideration for the reasons stated in the appellee’s opposition brief. It also found that Kossoff had not shown that the court overlooked controlling legal decisions or made a clear error of law, which the court identified as the required basis for reconsideration. The court further stated that the Bankruptcy Court had not abused its discretion or erred in holding Kossoff in contempt.
Disposition
The court ordered that Kossoff’s motions for reconsideration—Docket Number 9 in 21-CV-9924 and Docket Number 12 in 21-CV-9938—were DENIED. The Clerk of Court was directed to close those motions. This order did not reopen the previously dismissed appeals.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.