Ema Financial, LLC v. Joey New York, Inc.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:17-cv-09706
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In EMA Financial v. Joey New York, Judge Broderick denied Joey Chancis and Richard Roer’s untimely motion to reconsider an earlier ruling.
Joey Chancis and Richard Roer did not obtain reconsideration of the July 1, 2022 ruling. The court’s denial left in place its stated determination that they were personally liable for breach of contract, breach of guaranty, and constructive fraudulent conveyance; EMA Financial LLC’s judgment was not changed by this order.
What happened
EMA Financial LLC sued Joey New York Inc. and others. After a six-day trial, the court entered judgment holding Joey Chancis and Richard Roer personally liable for breach of contract, breach of guaranty, and constructive fraudulent conveyance. The court later denied their motion to block subpoenas and their request to pause the case during an appeal.
Chancis and Roer asked the court to reconsider that later ruling. They argued that the February 1, 2022 judgment had not found them personally liable for breach of contract. EMA Financial opposed the motion.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied reconsideration. He found the motion untimely under the court’s rule for reconsideration and said the defendants were repeating arguments about an issue the court had already decided, rather than identifying an error in the later ruling.
The detailed version
- Ema Financial, LLC v. Joey New York, Inc. · No. 1:17-cv-09706
- Vernon Broderick
- Sept. 30, 2022
Background
On February 1, 2022, after a six-day bench trial, the court entered judgment for EMA Financial on claims for breach of contract, breach of guaranty, and constructive fraudulent conveyance. The court denied judgment on claims for fraudulent inducement, actual fraudulent conveyance, and permission to pierce the corporate veil. The opinion states that Joey Chancis and Richard Roer were found personally liable for the claims on which judgment was entered.
On July 1, 2022, the court denied Chancis and Roer’s motion to quash post-judgment subpoenas issued by EMA Financial and denied their supplemental request to stay the action pending appeal. On July 13, 2022, Chancis and Roer moved for reconsideration of the July 1 ruling. They argued primarily that the February 1 judgment had not found them personally liable for breach of contract.
Legal standard
Motions for reconsideration are governed principally by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Southern District of New York Local Civil Rule 6.3. Under Local Rule 6.3, such a motion generally must be served within 14 days after the court’s determination of the original motion. Reconsideration is generally limited to an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. It is not a means to relitigate earlier issues or present arguments that could have been made before.
A motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which provides exceptional relief from a judgment or order, must be made within a reasonable time and, for certain grounds, no more than one year after the judgment or order. The court explained that the defendants had not presented a proper Rule 60(b) argument.
Court’s analysis
The court held that the motion was untimely to the extent it sought reconsideration under a statute or rule other than Rule 60. Any challenge to the findings or arguments from the February 1 judgment came long after the 14-day deadline in Local Rule 6.3.
The court also held that the defendants were attempting to relitigate an issue already decided. The court had stated in its June 24 order and its July 1 opinion that the February 1 judgment found Chancis and Roer individually liable for breach of contract, breach of guaranty, and constructive fraudulent conveyance. The defendants did not identify an error in the legal analysis underlying the July 1 ruling. Instead, they repeated arguments about the February 1 judgment.
Disposition
The court denied Chancis and Roer’s motion for reconsideration and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at Document 247.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.