Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York
- Lewis Liman
- 1:22-cv-01585
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 17
In Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Judge Liman said no response was needed to a filed notice unless a party requested court action.
The plaintiffs, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and any party seeking court action concerning the filed notice were affected. The order did not substitute the U.S. Department of the Treasury as a defendant.
What happened
In Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Clerk’s Office received a document titled “Notice of Substitution of Defendant.” The notice claimed that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s assets had been seized and that the U.S. Department of the Treasury was the real party in interest and should be substituted.
The court did not decide whether those claims were valid or whether substitution was proper. It said that no court action appeared necessary in response to the notice.
Judge Lewis J. Liman ordered that any party who believed the document required court action must file a letter through the court’s electronic filing system by the end of that week. The order otherwise took no action on the notice.
The detailed version
- Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York · No. 1:22-cv-01585
- Lewis Liman
- May 1, 2023
Background
The Clerk’s Office received an attached document titled “Notice of Substitution of Defendant.” The notice, signed by Duane Letroy Berry, claimed that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s assets had been “arrested” or seized and asserted that the United States Department of the Treasury was the real party in interest and was automatically substituted as the defendant. The attached materials included documents from other proceedings involving alleged seized federal securities.
Court’s action
Judge Liman stated that the court did not believe any action was needed in response to the notice. The court did not determine whether the assets had been seized, whether the Treasury Department was the real party in interest, or whether the defendant could be substituted. It directed any party who believed the document required court action to file a letter on the court’s electronic filing system by the end of that week.
Result
The order took no further action on the notice. It did not resolve the underlying claims, decide the requested substitution, or rule on the validity of the attached materials. The opinion does not identify the underlying claims in the case.
Read the full 17-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.