Kamdem-Ouaffo v. Balchem Corporation
- Philip Halpern
- 7:17-cv-02810
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Kamdem-Ouaffo v. Balchem, Judge Halpern denied reconsideration of the dismissal and fees, rejecting repeated due-process arguments.
Ricky Kamdem-Ouaffo was affected because the prior dismissal and the $10,597.75 assessment of fees and expenses remained in place. The defendants were affected because their opposition succeeded in keeping those prior rulings unchanged.
What happened
Ricky Kamdem-Ouaffo sued Balchem Corporation and other defendants while representing himself. The court had previously dismissed his complaint with prejudice and ordered him to pay $10,597.75 in fees and expenses connected to his failure to attend a court-ordered deposition.
Kamdem-Ouaffo filed two motions asking the court to revisit those decisions. Although he cited the rule governing a new trial, the court treated the motions as requests for reconsideration because the case had never gone to trial. He argued that the dismissal and fees violated his right to notice and an opportunity to be heard.
The court denied both motions, concluding that Kamdem-Ouaffo repeated arguments it had already rejected and identified no overlooked law or facts, new evidence, clear error, or serious injustice. Judge Halpern also denied additional requests for summary judgment, permission to file another motion, and recusal.
The detailed version
- Kamdem-Ouaffo v. Balchem Corporation · No. 7:17-cv-02810
- Philip Halpern
- Feb. 28, 2023
Background
Ricky Kamdem-Ouaffo brought this action against Balchem Corporation, Gideon Oenga, Bob Minger, Renee McComb, Theodore Harris, John Kuehner, Travis Larsen, and Michael Sestrick. He represented himself. On March 23, 2021, the court adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The court also assessed costs related to Kamdem-Ouaffo’s failure to attend a court-ordered deposition on October 13, 2020, and directed the defendants to provide proof of their reasonable expenses.
On April 4, 2022, the court denied Kamdem-Ouaffo’s requests for relief from the dismissal and assessed $10,597.75 in fees and expenses against him. Kamdem-Ouaffo then filed two motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a)(2) and Local Civil Rule 6.3. One challenged the denial of relief from the dismissal; the other challenged the fees and expenses.
How the Court Treated the Motions
Rule 59(a)(2) applies after a nonjury trial, and this case never went to trial. The court therefore construed the motions as requests for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which concerns changing or amending a judgment. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally available only when the moving party identifies an overlooked controlling decision or fact, an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or a need to prevent serious injustice. It cannot be used simply to repeat arguments that the court has already rejected.
First Motion: Dismissal
The court denied reconsideration of its refusal to grant relief from the dismissal. Kamdem-Ouaffo again argued that his due-process rights had been violated and that the court’s prior orders were therefore invalid. The court stated that it had already decided that he received notice and an opportunity to be heard. It concluded that the motion merely repeated arguments previously raised and rejected and did not identify a qualifying basis for reconsideration.
Second Motion: Fees and Expenses
The court also denied reconsideration of the $10,597.75 assessment. Kamdem-Ouaffo again argued that the fees and expenses violated due process because he lacked notice and an opportunity to be heard. The court rejected that argument, stating that he had received repeated notice that he was required to attend the deposition. It relied on the federal discovery-sanctions rule requiring reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, when a party fails to attend a court-ordered deposition. The court concluded that Kamdem-Ouaffo identified no overlooked law or facts and was attempting to relitigate an issue already decided.
Other Requests and Disposition
The court also denied requests referenced in Kamdem-Ouaffo’s briefs for summary judgment in his favor, permission to file an alternative motion under Rule 60(d)(3), and recusal. The court stated that these requests were not properly before it or were unsupported. Judge Philip M. Halpern concluded that Kamdem-Ouaffo’s motions for reconsideration were DENIED and directed the clerk to terminate the motion sequences at docket entries 275 and 277.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.