Beyond Bespoke Tailors, Inc. v. Barchiesi
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:20-cv-05482
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Beyond Bespoke v. Barchiesi, Judge Broderick denied Barchiesi’s motion to reconsider as untimely and unsupported.
James Barchiesi’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and the February 11, 2022 order denying his motions to transfer venue and partially dismiss the case was not reconsidered.
What happened
Beyond Bespoke Tailors, Inc. and Nick Torres sued James Barchiesi and others. Barchiesi previously asked the court to transfer the case and to dismiss some claims, but the court denied those requests on February 11, 2022.
Barchiesi later sought reconsideration of that earlier order. He relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), Local Civil Rule 6.3, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), as well as a declaration, website screenshots, and emails.
Judge Broderick denied the motion. He ruled that it was filed too late, that Rule 60(b) did not apply because the earlier order was not final, and that the submitted materials did not show a change in law, new evidence, clear error, or serious unfairness.
The detailed version
- Beyond Bespoke Tailors, Inc. v. Barchiesi · No. 1:20-cv-05482
- Vernon Broderick
- Aug. 10, 2023
Background
Beyond Bespoke Tailors, Inc. and Nick Torres brought the action against James Barchiesi and others. Barchiesi removed the case from New York Supreme Court to the Southern District of New York. He later moved to transfer the case to another venue and moved to dismiss some of the claims. On February 11, 2022, Judge Broderick denied both motions.
On September 18, 2022, Barchiesi moved for reconsideration of the February 11 order. His motion relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), Local Civil Rule 6.3, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). His supporting materials included a declaration from his counsel, website screenshots, and emails from 2016 and 2017.
Legal standards
Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy. Under Local Civil Rule 6.3, a motion for reconsideration generally must be served within 14 days after the court enters the challenged determination. Reconsideration generally requires an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, a clear error, or the need to prevent serious unfairness.
Rule 60(b) permits relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding. Rule 59(e) requires a motion to alter or amend a judgment to be filed within 28 days after entry of the judgment.
Court’s analysis
The court first ruled that Rule 60(b) did not apply because Barchiesi sought reconsideration of an order denying a motion to dismiss and a motion to transfer. That order was not final.
The court also ruled that Barchiesi’s motion was untimely under Local Civil Rule 6.3. The February 11, 2022 order gave him until February 25, 2022, to seek reconsideration, but his motion was dated September 18, 2022. The court stated that the time limit alone was enough to deny the motion. The court further concluded that the motion was untimely even under Rule 59(e).
Finally, the court stated that it would deny reconsideration even if the motion had been timely. The materials submitted by Barchiesi did not show a change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or serious unfairness.
Disposition
Judge Broderick denied Barchiesi’s motion for reconsideration. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the open matter associated with Document 139.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.