United States v. Buff
- George Daniels
- 1:19-cv-05549
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In United States v. Buff, Judge Daniels granted Buff’s new-evidence motion but denied reconsideration and dismissal motions challenging service.
Carolyn Buff, who was defending against the United States’ effort to collect civil penalties, and the United States.
What happened
In United States v. Buff, the United States sued Carolyn Buff to collect unpaid civil penalties for alleged Bank Secrecy Act violations. Buff represented herself and argued that the Government had not properly served her.
The court had previously adopted a recommendation to deny Buff’s motion to dismiss. Buff then sought reconsideration, arguing that the earlier decision contained factual and legal errors and that new evidence was available. She also separately moved to introduce that evidence and filed a renewed motion to dismiss.
Judge George B. Daniels granted the motion to introduce new evidence but denied the motion for reconsideration and the renewed motion to dismiss. The court ruled that reconsideration was untimely and meritless, and concluded that the evidence still supported proper service at the New York address.
The detailed version
- United States v. Buff · No. 1:19-cv-05549
- George Daniels
- Aug. 17, 2022
Background
The United States brought the action against Carolyn Buff, who was proceeding without a lawyer, to collect unpaid civil penalties assessed for violations of the Bank Secrecy Act, 31 U.S.C. § 531. Buff previously moved to dismiss the complaint, or alternatively for summary judgment, arguing that the Government failed to serve her properly under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
A magistrate judge recommended denying that motion, and the district court adopted the recommendation in full on September 13, 2021. Buff then moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 for reconsideration of that order, asserting errors of fact and law and newly available evidence. She also moved to introduce new evidence and filed a renewed motion to dismiss that did not provide a basis or an accompanying memorandum.
Court’s analysis
The court first ruled that Buff’s reconsideration motion was untimely. Although Rule 60(c)(1) requires such a motion to be made within a reasonable time, Local Civil Rule 6.3 sets a 14-day period for motions for reconsideration in the Southern District of New York. Buff served her motion 23 days after the earlier order, rather than within 14 days.
The court also ruled that the motion lacked merit. Buff did not identify an intervening change in controlling law. Her arguments challenged the earlier application of case law concerning whether a person may have more than one dwelling or usual place of abode. The court stated that this was not a basis for reconsideration.
Buff’s additional evidence supported her assertion that she lived in Switzerland rather than at the New York address where service occurred. The court nevertheless concluded that the New York address was another usual place of abode because the Government had presented indications of permanence, including that her accountant used the address as her primary address, Buff accepted mail there, and she kept a bank account at a nearby branch. The court found that Buff’s arguments did not show a clear factual error or rebut the basis for finding service proper.
Disposition
The court granted Defendant’s Motion to Introduce New Evidence, ECF No. 87. It denied Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 65, and Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 60. The Clerk was directed to close the motions. Because this order denied reconsideration and ruled on motions concerning service and dismissal without deciding the underlying liability for the civil penalties, the classification is procedural.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.