Cunningham v. Cornell University
- P. Castel
- 1:16-cv-06525
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cunningham v. Cornell University, Judge Castel denied plaintiffs’ request to delay costs and extend objections while they considered Supreme Court review.
The plaintiffs, CAPTRUST, the Cornell Defendants, and the Clerk’s taxation-of-costs process were affected. The plaintiffs’ requested delay and deadline extension were denied.
What happened
In Cunningham v. Cornell University, the plaintiffs asked the court to postpone the taxation of defendants’ costs and extend the deadline for objecting to the bills of costs. They sought to wait until after the deadline for, and any final decision on, a possible petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.
The plaintiffs said the Second Circuit had affirmed the judgment but recognized a disagreement among federal appeals courts about certain provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and related pleading requirements. The defendants did not oppose the requested extension.
Judge P. Kevin Castel denied the application. He stated that filing a possible Supreme Court petition was not a reason to forgo taxing costs, while recognizing that later events could require revising the costs that were taxed.
The detailed version
- Cunningham v. Cornell University · No. 1:16-cv-06525
- P. Castel
- Jan. 29, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs filed a letter motion seeking two related forms of relief: an adjournment of the date when the Clerk could tax, or formally assess, defendants’ costs, and an extension of the deadline for objecting to defendants’ bills of costs. The existing objection deadline was February 2, 2024. The plaintiffs requested an extension until the later of April 2, 2024, or the final disposition of any petition for a writ of certiorari, which is a request for U.S. Supreme Court review.
The Second Circuit had affirmed this Court’s judgment on November 14, 2023, and denied rehearing on December 20, 2023. The plaintiffs were considering a Supreme Court petition, for which the stated due date was March 19, 2024. On January 19, 2024, Defendant CAPTRUST and the Cornell Defendants filed notices of taxation and bills of costs. The defendants did not oppose the requested extension.
The plaintiffs argued that further proceedings could affect the finality of the judgment and the assessment of costs. They also noted that the Second Circuit had said its decision implicated a disagreement among federal appeals courts concerning the scope of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act’s prohibited-transaction provisions and related pleading standards.
Ruling
Judge P. Kevin Castel denied the application. The order stated that filing a petition for Supreme Court review was not a reason to forgo taxation of costs, while recognizing that subsequent events could require a further revision of the costs taxed. The order did not state that the costs themselves were finally determined in this ruling, and it did not add a with-prejudice or without-prejudice designation.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.