Otrompke v. The First Department Committee on Character and Fitness
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-04676
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Otrompke v. The First Department Committee on Character and Fitness, Judge Schofield overruled Otrompke’s objection to rulings denying recovery of service costs.
John J. Otrompke’s request to recover service costs and his challenge to the magistrate judge’s related rulings were affected.
What happened
In Otrompke v. The First Department Committee on Character and Fitness, John J. Otrompke challenged rulings about whether he could recover the costs of serving the defendants. A magistrate judge had denied his request and later denied reconsideration.
Otrompke argued that the first ruling applied the wrong standard under the federal service rule. He also challenged the denial of reconsideration, which was based on his filing more than fourteen days after the earlier decision.
Judge Schofield overruled Otrompke’s objection. She concluded that the earlier ruling was not contrary to law and that the reconsideration request was untimely, and directed the Clerk to close the motion.
The detailed version
- Otrompke v. The First Department Committee on Character and Fitness · No. 1:22-cv-04676
- Lorna Schofield
- Aug. 7, 2023
Background
Magistrate Judge Cott denied Otrompke’s motion to recover service costs on June 7, 2023. The order reasoned that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(2) did not permit recovery because the defendants had not failed to waive service. Judge Cott later denied Otrompke’s motion to reconsider that decision because it was filed late. Otrompke then objected to both rulings.
Because the challenged ruling concerned a nondispositive matter, the district court could modify or set it aside only if it was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court also noted that Otrompke was proceeding without a lawyer, so his submissions were read liberally.
Arguments and analysis
Otrompke argued that the June 7 order used the wrong standard under Rule 4(d). He contended that the question was whether the defendants failed to return a waiver form, rather than whether they refused to waive service. Rule 4(d) allows recovery of service costs when a defendant fails, without good cause, to sign and return a waiver.
The court rejected that argument. It explained that the June 7 order stated both that waiver forms had been provided to Otrompke and that he had been told the defendants planned to provide them. The court therefore concluded that the order was not contrary to law.
The court also upheld the July 12 order. Local Civil Rule 6.3 required a reconsideration motion to be served within fourteen days of the decision being challenged. Otrompke filed his motion on July 6, 2023, twenty-nine days after the June 7 decision, so the motion was untimely.
Disposition
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered that Otrompke’s objection to Judge Cott’s rulings regarding service costs was overruled. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket Number 97.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.