Rimini v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-07768
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Rimini v. J.P. Morgan, Judge Cronan denied two motions, extended deadlines, declined sanctions, and denied fee-free appeal status.
Thomas Rimini’s motions to strike, reconsider, extend his response deadline, and proceed without prepaying appeal fees were affected. Defendants received an extended reply deadline, and their request for sanctions was denied.
What happened
Rimini v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. involved Thomas Rimini’s argument that his notices of appeal had taken authority over the case away from the district court. The notices challenged an order setting a schedule for a motion to dismiss and an order denying an earlier motion to strike.
The court ruled that the notices were ineffective because they challenged nonfinal orders, and no order had been certified for an immediate appeal. It denied Rimini’s second motion to strike and his request to reconsider the earlier denial. The court extended his deadline to oppose the motion to dismiss to December 21, 2022, and extended defendants’ reply deadline to January 11, 2023. It declined to impose sanctions and denied fee-free status for any appeal from orders in this case.
Judge John P. Cronan explained that the case remained under the district court’s authority because the motion to dismiss still needed to be decided. He also certified that an appeal from this order or earlier orders in this case would not be taken in good faith for purposes of fee-free appeal status.
The detailed version
- Rimini v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. · No. 1:22-cv-07768
- John Cronan
- Nov. 30, 2022
Background
Thomas Rimini filed the complaint on September 9, 2022. Defendants later filed a motion to dismiss. Rimini then filed a second motion to strike that motion, asked the court to reconsider its denial of his first motion to strike, and requested more time to respond to the motion to dismiss.
Rimini argued that his notices of appeal had transferred authority over the relevant issues to the Court of Appeals and had prevented the district court from acting. The notices challenged the order setting the briefing schedule for the motion to dismiss and the order denying his first motion to strike.
Jurisdiction and motions to strike
The court explained that filing a notice of appeal ordinarily gives the Court of Appeals authority over the parts of a case involved in the appeal and removes those matters from the district court’s control. But that rule does not apply to a frivolous, untimely, or otherwise defective appeal. Ordinarily, an appeal may be taken from a final decision—one that ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the district court to do except carry out the judgment.
Neither challenged order was final. After setting a briefing schedule and denying the first motion to strike, the district court still had to decide defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court also had not certified either order for an immediate interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The court therefore concluded that Rimini’s notices of appeal did not remove its authority over the case.
The court denied Rimini’s second motion to strike defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied his request for reconsideration of the earlier order denying his first motion to strike.
Extension of time
Although Rimini had not followed the requirements of Rule 3B of the court’s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases, the court excused that failure on this occasion. It extended Rimini’s deadline to oppose defendants’ motion to dismiss until December 21, 2022. It correspondingly extended defendants’ deadline to file a reply until January 11, 2023.
Requested sanctions
Defendants asked the court to require Rimini to pay the attorneys’ fees they said they had unnecessarily incurred in responding to his motions. The court held that sanctions under Rule 11 were unavailable because defendants had not followed Rule 11(c)(2)’s procedural requirements. The court also recognized its inherent authority to award fees when a party acts in bad faith or for oppressive reasons, but emphasized that this authority must be used with restraint and discretion. The court declined to impose sanctions on Rimini, at least at that time.
Fee-free appeal status
Rimini also sought permission to pursue his appeals without prepaying fees. The court found his appeals patently frivolous because no final judgment or other appealable order had been issued. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), it certified that any appeal from this order or from an earlier order in this case would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for those appeals. The court stated that this certification applied only to appeals from orders in this case.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.