McCaffrey v. Gatekeeper USA, Inc
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:14-cv-00493-VSB
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In McCaffrey v. Gatekeeper USA, Inc., Judge Broderick denied defendants’ clarification, reconsideration, and postponement requests after an earlier summary-judgment ruling.
The ruling affected McCaffrey and Defendants Gatekeeper USA, Inc., Asgard International, Inc., Ares Ventures Inc., A. John Leontakianakos, and John Seetoo. It left the earlier summary-judgment ruling in place, denied the defendants’ clarification and reconsideration requests, and required the scheduled conference to proceed.
What happened
In McCaffrey v. Gatekeeper USA, Inc., Defendants asked the court to clarify an earlier order that granted Timothy Andrew McCaffrey’s motion for summary judgment. They also asked to postpone a scheduled conference.
The court found its earlier order was clear. It also treated the clarification request as a request for reconsideration because Defendants were representing themselves, but found that request was filed too late and did not identify overlooked evidence or law that could change the result.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied the clarification request and denied the reconsideration request. He also denied the postponement request as moot and ordered the conference to proceed on May 3, 2022.
The detailed version
- McCaffrey v. Gatekeeper USA, Inc · No. 1:14-cv-00493-VSB
- Vernon Broderick
- May 3, 2022
Background
Timothy Andrew McCaffrey, who was representing himself, sued Gatekeeper USA, Inc., Asgard International, Inc., Ares Ventures Inc., A. John Leontakianakos, and John Seetoo. He alleged securities fraud and negligent misrepresentation. The court had previously granted McCaffrey’s motion for summary judgment in an Opinion and Order dated March 28, 2022.
The defendants, who were also representing themselves, filed a motion asking the court to clarify the earlier order and provide additional examples supporting its reasoning. They also asked to postpone a conference scheduled for May 3, 2022.
Clarification request
The court explained that a motion for clarification is meant to resolve an ambiguity, not change an order. The court found that its earlier Opinion and Order was unambiguous. It therefore denied the defendants’ motion for clarification.
Reconsideration request
Because the defendants were representing themselves, the court also treated their motion as a motion for reconsideration. Reconsideration is an extraordinary request generally requiring a party to identify controlling law or evidence the court overlooked, a change in controlling law, newly available evidence, clear error, or a need to prevent serious unfairness.
The court found the reconsideration request was untimely. The earlier order was issued on March 28, 2022, and the defendants filed their motion on April 28, 2022. The court also found that the defendants did not identify controlling decisions or evidence that it had overlooked. Instead, they primarily asked the court to identify evidence that might support their position.
The court further noted that the defendants’ summary-judgment factual statement generally lacked citations to admissible evidence, as required by Local Civil Rule 56.1. The court also found that the defendants had not clearly disputed during summary judgment the facts they later claimed were erroneous. The court gave examples involving the alleged high price of Gatekeeper stock and whether Seetoo referred to a Homeland Security deal or a DHL deal. It concluded that the defendants had not shown how these alleged disputes could change the earlier result. The reconsideration request therefore failed as well.
Conference request and disposition
Because the court had answered the clarification motion, it denied the defendants’ request to postpone the conference as moot. The conference was ordered to proceed on May 3, 2022.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied the defendants’ motion in its entirety, including the clarification request, the motion treated as a reconsideration request, and the request to postpone the conference. The Clerk was directed to send the order to McCaffrey and the individual defendants, and McCaffrey was directed to serve the order on the individual defendants.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.