Estate of Judith Brook v. Monitor/Me LLC
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:23-cv-01319
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Estate of Judith Brook v. Monitor/Me, LLC: Judge Ramos denied reconsideration after dismissing both actions for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The Estate of Judith Brook and Adam Brook, whose motion for reconsideration was denied; the two actions remained dismissed and closed.
What happened
In Estate of Judith Brook v. Monitor/Me, LLC, the court had dismissed all claims in two related actions because it lacked the power to hear them and had closed the cases.
The plaintiffs asked the court to reconsider that decision. They repeated arguments that the court had jurisdiction and that the defendants were state actors who could be sued under a federal civil-rights law because of an alleged conspiracy with a New York judge and their positions as court-appointed officials.
Judge Ramos ruled that the plaintiffs had not identified overlooked facts or law that could change the decision. He denied the motion for reconsideration and directed the clerk to terminate it.
The detailed version
- Estate of Judith Brook v. Monitor/Me LLC · No. 1:23-cv-01319
- Edgardo Ramos
- Sept. 7, 2023
Background
The order addresses two related actions: Adam Brook’s action, No. 22-cv-6173, and the action brought by the Estate of Judith Brook and Adam Brook, No. 23-cv-1319. On August 21, 2023, the Court dismissed all claims in both actions for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and closed the cases.
Motion for Reconsideration
On September 4, 2023, the plaintiffs moved for re-argument and reconsideration. The Court explained that reconsideration is not an opportunity to relitigate issues already decided. A party must identify controlling decisions or facts that the Court overlooked and that could reasonably change its conclusion.
The plaintiffs repeated arguments made in opposition to the earlier motions to dismiss. They argued that the Court had jurisdiction and that they had properly stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights law, because the defendants were state actors based on alleged actions in furtherance of a conspiracy with a New York judge and their positions as court-appointed officials. The Court found that the plaintiffs had not identified facts or law that would change its earlier conclusions.
Disposition
Judge Edgardo Ramos denied the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. The Court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion, Doc. 147.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.