Nicholson v. The Bank of New York Mellon
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:22-cv-03177
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Nicholson v. The Bank of New York Mellon, Judge Gardephe denied Nicholson’s motions seeking to change or set aside the judgment.
Harriet Nicholson’s motions to alter, amend, or set aside the judgment were denied; the Bank of New York Mellon retained the judgment previously entered in its favor.
What happened
In Nicholson v. The Bank of New York Mellon, Harriet Nicholson, who represented herself, asked the court to set aside a Texas state-court judgment involving a home-loan dispute. The court had previously dismissed her claims and entered judgment for the Bank of New York Mellon after ruling that the claims were barred by earlier decisions.
Nicholson filed several later motions under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60. She argued that the court had made legal and factual errors, that defense counsel had misrepresented whether her fraud claim was barred, and that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. She also sought to add a claim under a New York law concerning attorney misconduct.
The court ruled that Nicholson’s new filings repeated arguments already rejected by the Texas courts and by this court, and denied the motions. Judge Paul G. Gardephe directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motions.
The detailed version
- Nicholson v. The Bank of New York Mellon · No. 1:22-cv-03177
- Paul Gardephe
- Feb. 21, 2024
Background
Harriet Nicholson, proceeding without a lawyer, sued The Bank of New York Mellon concerning a home-loan dispute and sought to set aside a Texas state-court judgment. In an August 28, 2023 order, the court granted the Bank’s motion to dismiss and denied leave to amend, ruling that Nicholson’s claims were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel. Res judicata generally prevents relitigation of claims decided in an earlier case, while collateral estoppel generally prevents relitigation of issues already decided. The Clerk entered judgment for the Bank on January 17, 2024.
Motions
Nicholson previously filed several motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), including motions arguing that res judicata and collateral estoppel did not apply and that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The court denied those motions.
In January 2024, Nicholson filed a motion and an amended motion under Rules 60(b)(3), 60(b)(6), and 60(d)(3), along with a claim under New York Judiciary Law § 487. She argued that defense counsel had made a material misrepresentation by asserting that her post-foreclosure fraud-on-the-court claim had been fully and fairly litigated in the Texas action. She also sought leave to add a § 487 claim against Brian P. Scibetta and McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC.
In February 2024, Nicholson filed a motion under Rules 59(e) and 60(b), a supplement, and supplemental legal authority. She again argued that the court had erred in concluding that her claims were precluded and had overlooked factual allegations, evidence, and controlling law.
Court’s analysis
The court held that Nicholson’s new filings rehashed or repackaged arguments made earlier in the case and in the underlying Texas action. The court repeated its prior conclusion that the Texas courts had considered and rejected Nicholson’s fraud claim on the merits, and that labeling the same allegations as “fraud on the court” did not avoid the preclusive effect of the Texas action.
The court explained that a Rule 60(b) motion is properly denied when it seeks to relitigate issues already decided. It also explained that relief under Rule 59(e), which permits a party to ask the court to alter or amend a judgment, is an extraordinary remedy used sparingly and should be denied when the party is merely attempting to relitigate a decided issue. The court stated that the additional legal authority Nicholson cited did not justify a different result.
Disposition
The court found no basis for granting relief under Rules 59 or 60. After considering Nicholson’s supplemental legal authority, the court denied her motions and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motions identified in docket entries 117–118, 123–124, and 126–127.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.