Crosley v. Banks
- Vyskocil
- 1:22-cv-07101
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Crosley v. Banks, Judge Vyskocil denied reconsideration of a preliminary-injunction denial and denied plaintiffs’ request for oral argument as premature.
The plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and request for oral argument were denied; the defendants were not required to file a response to the reconsideration motion.
What happened
In Crosley v. Banks, the plaintiffs asked the court to reconsider its November 29, 2022, decision denying their request for a preliminary injunction. The court had found that their written arguments did not address required issues, including whether they would suffer lasting harm without the injunction and whether the public interest supported relief.
The plaintiffs argued that the court had made a clear error by denying the injunction before approving their proposed order requiring the defendants to explain why the injunction should not issue. They also argued that they should be excused from addressing every part of the preliminary-injunction standard because the court had not expressly told them to do so.
Judge Vyskocil denied the motion for reconsideration, concluding that the plaintiffs had shown no clear error. She also denied the plaintiffs’ request for oral argument or additional briefing as premature and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion.
The detailed version
- Crosley v. Banks · No. 1:22-cv-07101
- Vyskocil
- Dec. 15, 2022
Background
On November 29, 2022, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, which is a temporary court order intended to provide relief before the case is finally resolved. The court found that the plaintiffs’ written submissions did not discuss whether they would suffer irreparable harm without the requested relief or whether the public interest favored granting it. The court therefore concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown that they were entitled to this extraordinary remedy.
Motion for Reconsideration
The plaintiffs moved for reconsideration. The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy granted only when a party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.
The plaintiffs argued that the court had clearly erred by denying the preliminary injunction before endorsing their proposed order directing the defendants to show cause why the injunction should not be granted. The court rejected that argument, explaining that it was not required to sign the proposed order. The proposed order was intended to speed up the briefing schedule, but the plaintiffs later proposed a lengthy schedule for their preliminary-injunction motion, which the court granted.
The plaintiffs also argued that they should be excused from addressing every element of a preliminary-injunction claim because the court had not expressly directed the parties to address the legal standard for injunctive relief. The court rejected that argument because the briefing was requested in connection with the preliminary-injunction motion, and no other relief or legal standard applied at that point. The court concluded that it had not committed clear error by denying the motion based on the inadequate briefing.
Ruling
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration based on the plaintiffs’ submissions alone and without requiring the defendants to respond. The court also denied the plaintiffs’ request to present oral argument or submit additional briefing on the remaining issues as premature. The Clerk of Court was respectfully requested to close the motion at ECF No. 29.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.