McCaffrey v. Gatekeeper USA, Inc
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:14-cv-00493-VSB
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In McCaffrey v. Gatekeeper, Judge Broderick denied two defendants’ motion to vacate an earlier summary-judgment ruling.
John Leontakianakos and John Seetoo were directly affected because their motion to vacate the judgment was denied. The earlier summary-judgment ruling therefore remained in place.
What happened
In McCaffrey v. Gatekeeper USA, Inc., John Leontakianakos and John Seetoo asked the court to undo an earlier judgment entered against all defendants after summary judgment. They were representing themselves.
They argued that they had failed to serve interrogatories, that the court had improperly used an investigation, and that the ruling conflicted with certain statutes. The court found that the interrogatory delay was not excusable, declined to reconsider arguments already raised, and said the cited statutes did not provide a basis for relief.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied the motion to vacate judgment. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion.
The detailed version
- McCaffrey v. Gatekeeper USA, Inc · No. 1:14-cv-00493-VSB
- Vernon Broderick
- Mar. 24, 2023
Background
The court had entered summary judgment against all defendants on March 28, 2022. John Leontakianakos and John Seetoo, identified together as the Individual Defendants, previously moved to vacate that ruling, and the court denied that motion on May 6, 2022. They then filed another motion to vacate judgment. The opinion states that the Individual Defendants were representing themselves, so the court interpreted their filing under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows relief from a final judgment in limited circumstances.
Arguments and analysis
The Individual Defendants first argued that their counsel had prepared interrogatories but apparently never served them on the plaintiff. The court treated this argument as seeking relief based on excusable neglect or newly discovered evidence. It found that the Individual Defendants had not shown that they were justifiably unaware of the unserved interrogatories or that they had acted diligently. The court noted that the interrogatories apparently were drafted in June 2016, but the defendants did not realize they had not been served until August 2022, after briefing on summary judgment and after they had already filed one motion to vacate.
The Individual Defendants also argued that the court improperly relied on parts of the Howard Richards investigation and penalized them for complying with rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The court said one argument had already been raised and addressed, and that a motion for reconsideration could not be used to repeat rejected arguments or present arguments that could have been made earlier. The court therefore declined to consider those arguments.
Finally, the Individual Defendants argued that the court had acted inconsistently with the Administrative Procedure Act and 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242. The court found that the Administrative Procedure Act was not relevant because this was not a case involving a government agency. It also held that Sections 241 and 242 are criminal statutes that do not give the Individual Defendants a private right to bring claims. The court concluded that none of the asserted grounds justified vacating the earlier ruling.
Ruling
Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied the Individual Defendants’ motion to vacate judgment. The court directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 335.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.