Kumaran v. Vision Financial Markets, LLC

Background

The court considered a motion by the plaintiffs for reconsideration of three orders entered on January 3, 2022. Nefertiti Risk Capital Management LLC (NRCM) and Nefertiti Asset Management LLC (NAM) also sought an extension of time to oppose defendants’ motions to dismiss. The plaintiffs additionally requested seven more days to amend or supplement their motion; the court denied that request because the motion already included a 23-page memorandum and no further briefing was needed.

Reconsideration request

Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy. Under Local Civil Rule 6.3, it is available when the court overlooked facts or controlling legal authority that would have changed its decision. The usual grounds include an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, clear error, or the need to prevent serious unfairness. A reconsideration motion may not be used to present new facts, issues, or arguments that were not previously raised.

The first two January 3 orders denied requests for additional time or adjournments because no filings or response deadlines then required action. The plaintiffs did not identify any overlooked matter or other ground for reconsidering those orders, so the court denied reconsideration of them.

The third January 3 order required the defendants to file their replies by the existing deadline and stated that the court would not consider further briefing. The plaintiffs asked the court to reconsider that ruling and then allow NRCM and NAM to file late opposition papers. The court denied reconsideration because the plaintiffs did not identify anything the court had overlooked or any error in its decision. The court also rejected a claim of serious unfairness because the plaintiffs had not requested an extension before the January 3 order.

Extension-of-time request

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) permits a court to extend an expired deadline for good cause when the failure to act resulted from excusable neglect. The court considered prejudice to the opposing party, the length and effect of the delay, the reason for the delay and whether it was within the requesting party’s control, and whether the party acted in good faith.

The court found that NRCM and NAM had not provided a sufficient justification. The plaintiffs argued that they did not know they had to respond because the court had not asserted jurisdiction over their claims. The court found that explanation not credible. In a September 30, 2021 order, the court had rejected related jurisdiction arguments, explained that the motions to compel arbitration and the motions to dismiss addressed different claims, and set November 30, 2021 as the deadline for opposing the dismissal motions.

The court also relied on later filings. On November 22, 2021, the plaintiffs requested an extension until December 14, 2021, stating that they were preparing responses to both types of motions. The court granted that extension but stated that no further extensions would be granted. On December 14, Plaintiff Kumaran filed opposition memoranda that referred to other opposition papers. The court said those filings were inconsistent with the claim that the plaintiffs did not understand that briefing was required.

The court further ruled that the November 22 order did not prevent the plaintiffs from requesting another extension, and that deadlines in other cases did not establish excusable neglect. The plaintiffs had nearly three months to oppose the motions, and allowing additional opposition after the defendants had filed replies would cause prejudice. The court therefore denied the untimely extension request. It noted that an unopposed motion to dismiss still must show that the complaint fails to state a claim.

Disposition

Judge Stewart D. Aaron denied the plaintiffs’ motion, including the requests for reconsideration, additional briefing time, and an extension for NRCM and NAM to oppose the motions to dismiss. This order did not decide the merits of the motions to dismiss.