United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Collector's Coffee Inc.
- Victor Marrero
- 1:19-cv-04355
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Collector’s Coffee, Judge Gorenstein deemed the objection legally ineffective and declined to consider it.
The ruling affected the parties’ attempted Rule 72 challenge to the preliminary injunction, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, Collector’s Coffee Inc., the other defendants, and Veronica Kontilai.
What happened
In United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Collector’s Coffee Inc., the parties had agreed that Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein could decide the Securities and Exchange Commission’s request for an asset freeze and other relief, including a preliminary injunction. The court held a hearing and granted the preliminary injunction in an October 4, 2023, opinion and order.
The court explained that because the parties had given partial consent under the federal magistrate-judge statute, the preliminary-injunction ruling was not reviewable by a district judge under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. The opinion stated that any review had to proceed under Rule 73 instead.
Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein ruled that the filing labeled “Objection,” which sought review under Rule 72, was a nullity and would not be considered. The order was dated October 19, 2023.
The detailed version
- United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Collector's Coffee Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-04355
- Victor Marrero
- Oct. 19, 2023
Background
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission brought this action against Collector’s Coffee Inc. and other defendants. On July 1, 2019, the parties consented under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein’s authority to rule on the Commission’s motion for an asset freeze and other relief, including a preliminary injunction. The opinion notes that Veronica Kontilai later became covered by a second consent form because she had not signed the original form.
The court held a hearing and ruled on the preliminary-injunction motion in an Opinion and Order dated October 4, 2023. That ruling granted the preliminary injunction.
Issue and analysis
The filing at issue was labeled “Objection” and sought to challenge the October 4 preliminary-injunction ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
- The court determined that the parties’ partial consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) made the ruling not reviewable by a district judge under Rule
- Instead, the court stated that review had to proceed under Rule
- The opinion cited authority stating that a court of appeals conducts direct review of a preliminary injunction granted by a magistrate judge after partial consent.
Ruling
Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein deemed the Rule 72 filing a “nullity” and stated that the court would not consider it. The order did not otherwise alter the October 4 preliminary injunction.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.