Green v. Viacom CBS
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-00238
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Green v. Viacom CBS, Judge Swain denied reconsideration after Green failed to submit a signed complaint page.
Courtney Green, who was representing herself, and Viacom CBS. The court denied Green’s request for reconsideration and left the earlier dismissal without prejudice in place.
What happened
In Green v. Viacom CBS, Courtney Green asked the court to reconsider the dismissal of her case. The court had dismissed the action without prejudice after Green failed to resubmit the complaint’s signature page with an original signature as ordered.
Green’s motion said she had mailed a paper complaint with an original signature, but the court noted that the signature page in the filed complaint was unsigned. The court treated her filing as a request to change the judgment and for reconsideration.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied that motion because Green did not show that the court had overlooked controlling law or relevant facts. The court also denied Green’s other pending requests.
The detailed version
- Green v. Viacom CBS · No. 1:22-cv-00238
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 28, 2022
Background
The court previously ordered Courtney Green, who was representing herself, to resubmit the complaint’s signature page with an original signature within 30 days. The court warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal. After Green did not comply, the court dismissed the action without prejudice in an order and judgment dated March 14, 2022, and entered two days later.
Green then filed an unsigned motion to reconsider. She asserted that the original filing had been sent through the United States Postal Service as a paper document with an original signature. The court’s footnote stated that the signature page in the filed complaint was unsigned.
Court’s analysis
The court treated Green’s filing as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and as a motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3. Under those standards, the person seeking reconsideration must show that the court overlooked controlling legal authority or factual matters that had already been presented. The court explained that reconsideration motions are narrowly applied and are not an opportunity to repeat arguments or present new theories or evidence.
The court concluded that Green had not shown that it overlooked any controlling decisions or factual matters concerning the dismissal.
Ruling
The court denied Green’s motion under Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3. It also denied Green’s other pending requests. The opinion does not identify those other requests beyond citing docket entries 12 through 14.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.