Golub v. Berdon LLP

Background

Dr. J. David Golub, who represented himself, sued Berdon LLP after Berdon terminated his employment. He asserted claims under several federal statutes, including the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, as well as state-law claims.

In earlier rulings, the court dismissed Golub’s federal claims first without prejudice and later with prejudice. The court also held that it could not determine whether diversity jurisdiction existed over the state-law claims. After an October 2022 evidentiary hearing, the court found that Golub was domiciled in New Jersey when he filed the action and that Berdon was also a New Jersey citizen, so complete diversity did not exist. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and dismissed them without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The resulting February 14, 2023 judgment dismissed the federal claims with prejudice and the state-law claims without prejudice. Golub appealed, but the Second Circuit denied his motion for permission to appeal, citing his prior pattern of vexatious filings and his failure to pay a $1,500 sanction imposed in connection with earlier appeals. The opinion states that Golub had also filed a motion to recall the appellate mandate, which was pending at the time of this order.

Golub’s motion

On July 31, 2023, Golub moved for relief from the February 14 judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60(b). He presented the same arguments under both rules without distinguishing between them.

A Rule 59 motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed within 28 days after judgment. Because Golub filed his motion about five and a half months after judgment, the court denied relief under Rule 59 as untimely and considered the motion only under Rule 60(b).

Court’s analysis under Rule 60(b)

Rule 60(b) permits a court, in limited circumstances, to relieve a party from a final judgment or order. The listed grounds include mistake or excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct by an opposing party, a void judgment, and satisfaction or discharge of the judgment. Rule 60(b)(6) also permits relief for another reason that justifies it, but such relief requires exceptional circumstances.

The court first concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Golub’s Rule 60(b) motion. Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, a district court generally cannot reconsider issues decided, or that could have been decided, during earlier proceedings. After a case has been reviewed on appeal, a district court lacks jurisdiction over a Rule 60(b) motion unless it is based on later events or changed circumstances that the appellate court did not consider.

The court found that Golub’s motion identified no such later events or changed circumstances. Instead, it relied on legal and factual arguments available before his appeal, including arguments he had made in his appellate papers. The court therefore held that it lacked jurisdiction over the Rule 60(b) motion.

The court added that the motion would fail on the merits even if it could consider it. Golub had not shown mistake, neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or another ground under Rule 60(b)(1) through (5). He also had not shown a sufficient reason for relief under Rule 60(b)(6). The court characterized the motion as repeating arguments about his dismissed claims and asserting, without support, that the dismissals were unconstitutional.

Disposition

Judge John G. Koeltl denied Golub’s motion for relief from the judgment under Rules 59 and 60(b). The court directed the Clerk to close the motion at ECF No. 138. Because the case remained closed, it further directed the Clerk and the Pro Se Intake Office not to docket additional filings from Golub in this action and to return them to the sender. The court stated that filings made in violation of that instruction would be stricken from the docket.