Lacen v. Aygemong
- Analisa Torres
- 1:19-cv-05097
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lacen v. Aygemong, Judge Torres found Defendants Kolla and Runcie had satisfied the judgment and ordered the Clerk to record that satisfaction.
Defendants Sai Kolla and Janet Runcie were relieved of the outstanding judgment after the court found that they had satisfied the $202.96 obligation for service-of-process costs. The Clerk of Court was directed to record that satisfaction.
What happened
In Lacen v. Aygemong, Defendants Sai Kolla and Janet Runcie asked the court to provide relief from a judgment requiring payment of service-of-process costs. They said the City of New York had sent two checks totaling $202.96 to the U.S. Marshals Service, but neither check was deposited.
The court found that the defendants had satisfied the judgment because payment had been tendered and received by the appropriate entity twice. The court said that the checks not being cashed was beyond the defendants’ control.
Judge Torres directed the Clerk of Court to enter a satisfaction of the March 30, 2021 judgment.
The detailed version
- Lacen v. Aygemong · No. 1:19-cv-05097
- Analisa Torres
- Feb. 2, 2023
Background
The defendants named in this order were Sai Kolla and Janet Runcie. They moved for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5). That rule permits a court to relieve a party from a final judgment or order when, among other circumstances, the judgment has been satisfied.
The judgment concerned the costs of serving process on the defendants. The court’s March 29, 2021 order directed the defendants to pay those costs, and a judgment was entered on March 30, 2021.
The Parties’ Positions
The defendants argued that they had satisfied the judgment. According to the materials submitted with their motion, the City of New York, on the defendants’ behalf, issued and mailed a $202.96 check to the U.S. Marshals Service on May 21, 2021. A Marshals Service staff member confirmed receipt of that check, but City records later showed that it remained uncashed. After inquiries, the check was placed into stop-payment status.
The City issued a second check on May 23, 2022. After additional efforts to contact the Marshals Service, a City staff member delivered the second check to the Marshals Service’s Civil Section at 500 Pearl Street in New York on September 20, 2022. That check also remained undeposited and was later placed into stop-payment status. Plaintiff did not respond to the motion.
Court’s Analysis and Ruling
Judge Analisa Torres explained that Rule 60(b) provides extraordinary relief and is generally disfavored, but the court has discretion to grant it in exceptional circumstances. The court found that the defendants had satisfied their burden because they had tendered payment and the payments had been received by the appropriate entity on two separate occasions. The court concluded that the failure to cash the checks was beyond the defendants’ control.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter a satisfaction of the March 30, 2021 judgment, identified as ECF No. 73. The order does not expressly state that the Rule 60(b)(5) motion was “granted”; its stated ruling is the finding that the judgment was satisfied and the directive to enter satisfaction.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.