Graterol-Garrido v. Vega
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-04209
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Graterol-Garrido v. Vega, Judge Cronan denied Vega’s motion to strike, sanction, and add evidence.
The ruling directly affected Defendant Patricia Maria Vega, who represented herself, and Plaintiff Marina Herminia Graterol-Garrido and her counsel.
What happened
In Graterol-Garrido v. Vega, Defendant Patricia Maria Vega asked the court to strike materials, sanction Plaintiff and her counsel, and add evidence supporting self-defense and the Statute of Frauds. Plaintiff opposed the motion.
The court said the request to strike did not meet the requirements of Rule 12(f), which applies to certain material in pleadings and has a 21-day filing deadline. The court also found no valid basis for sanctions. It treated the request to add evidence as a request to reopen the record after a nonjury trial, but found the proposed evidence about Plaintiff’s ex-husband’s child-support obligation irrelevant to the disputed statements.
The court denied the motion. Judge John P. Cronan also directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Vega, who was representing herself.
The detailed version
- Graterol-Garrido v. Vega · No. 1:20-cv-04209
- John Cronan
- July 11, 2022
Background
Defendant Patricia Maria Vega moved to strike and sanction Plaintiff Marina Herminia Graterol-Garrido and Plaintiff’s counsel. Vega also asked to submit what she described as newly available evidence supporting self-defense and the Statute of Frauds. Graterol-Garrido opposed the motion.
Reasons for the Decision
The court denied the motion for three reasons:
1. Request to strike: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) allows a court to remove certain insufficient, redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter from a pleading. The court said Vega’s complaints appeared to target materials outside the pleadings. In addition, Rule 12(f) requires such a motion to be filed within 21 days after service of the pleading, and that deadline had passed.
2. Request for sanctions: The court found that Vega identified no valid basis for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, or the court’s inherent authority.
3. Request to add evidence: The court construed Vega’s request as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. That rule permits a court, after a nonjury trial, to take additional testimony on a motion for a new trial. Vega argued that new evidence showed that Graterol-Garrido’s ex-husband had no legally enforceable obligation to pay child support. The court found that issue irrelevant to the truth of the disputed statements in the case, which concerned Graterol-Garrido rather than her ex-husband. The court stated that newly discovered evidence offered to reopen the record must be admissible and probably effective to change the result; irrelevant evidence meets neither requirement.
Disposition
Judge John P. Cronan denied Vega’s motion. The order does not designate the denial as with or without prejudice. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail the order to Vega, whom the order identifies as representing herself.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.