Morren v. New York University
- James Oetken
- 1:20-cv-10802
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Morren v. New York University, Judge Oetken denied Morren’s request to undo the dismissal of his complaint.
Darwyn M. Morren’s request to undo the earlier dismissal of his amended complaint was denied; the defendants’ earlier dismissal remained in place.
What happened
In Morren v. New York University, the court had previously dismissed Darwyn M. Morren’s amended complaint because it did not state a legal claim. Morren represented himself and asked the court to undo that judgment.
Morren argued that the defendants had filed only a notice of a motion to dismiss, not the motion itself. He also argued that he did not consent to electronic court notifications for the amended complaint.
The court rejected those arguments and denied Morren’s request for relief from the judgment. Judge Oetken explained that, under the district’s local rule, a notice of motion to dismiss serves as the motion, and Morren’s consent to electronic notification applied to all cases filed in the court.
The detailed version
- Morren v. New York University · No. 1:20-cv-10802
- James Oetken
- June 28, 2022
Background
On May 25, 2022, the court adopted a report and recommendation by Judge Ona T. Wang and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss Darwyn M. Morren’s amended complaint for failure to state a claim. Morren, who was representing himself, then moved for relief from that judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. That rule permits a court to provide relief for certain reasons, including mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect.
Arguments
Morren argued that the defendants had filed only a notice of a motion to dismiss, rather than a motion to dismiss itself. He also argued that the court wrongly concluded that he had notice of the motion because his consent form for electronic court notification was part of his original complaint.
Court’s reasoning
The court rejected Morren’s arguments. It stated that reconsideration is generally denied unless the person seeking it identifies controlling decisions or information that the court overlooked. The court explained that, under the Southern District of New York’s local rule, a notice of motion to dismiss serves as a motion to dismiss the operative complaint. It also stated that Morren’s consent to electronic notification applied to all cases filed in that court and was not withdrawn when he amended his complaint.
Disposition
The court denied Morren’s motion for relief from judgment. Judge J. Paul Oetken signed the order on June 28, 2022.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.