Keitel v. D'Agostino, Sr.

Background

On October 27, 2022, the Court issued an earlier opinion and order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. On November 25, 2022, Frederick J. Keitel III filed a motion seeking relief from the court’s order and judgment. A footnote states that the Second Amended Complaint was brought on behalf of Keitel and three entities, but the motion appeared to have been filed only by Keitel.

Motion for Relief

The court described Keitel’s motion as nearly incomprehensible and found that it presented no non-frivolous grounds for reconsideration. The court explained that reconsideration is generally unavailable for relitigating old issues, presenting new theories, seeking a rehearing, or taking another opportunity to argue the case. It also stated that relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) is extraordinary and requires exceptional circumstances.

Show-Cause Order and Disposition

The court stated that Keitel’s frivolous motion and what it called baseless and inflammatory accusations directed at the court and others provided a possible basis for sanctions. It ordered Keitel to explain in writing, by December 12, 2022, and in no more than fifteen pages, why sanctions should not be imposed under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and/or the court’s inherent authority. Defendants were permitted, but not required, to respond by December 21, 2022, also in no more than fifteen pages.

Judge Jesse M. Furman denied the motion as frivolous. The order directed the Clerk of Court to terminate Docket No. 94. It ordered Keitel to show cause regarding possible sanctions but did not itself impose sanctions.