Goodman v. Bouzy
- Analisa Torres
- 1:21-cv-10878
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Goodman v. Bouzy, Judge Torres denied Goodman’s Rule 60(b)(1) motion because it sought to relitigate matters already decided.
Jason Goodman, whose motion for relief from the final order was denied. The opinion does not describe any separate effect on the defendants.
What happened
In Goodman v. Bouzy, the court had previously overruled Jason Goodman’s objections and adopted two reports and recommendations by Magistrate Judge James L. Cott. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or that earlier final order’s substance.
Goodman then asked the court to reconsider its final order under Rule 60(b)(1), arguing that the court had made clear errors and overlooked facts. That rule allows relief from a judgment for reasons including mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.
Judge Analisa Torres denied Goodman’s motion, finding that he had not met the high standard for relief and was trying to relitigate matters the court and Judge Cott had already decided. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Goodman v. Bouzy · No. 1:21-cv-10878
- Analisa Torres
- Feb. 21, 2024
Background
On June 28, 2023, the court overruled Jason Goodman’s objections and adopted reports and recommendations issued by Magistrate Judge James L. Cott. The opinion refers to that ruling as the court’s final order but does not describe the underlying claims or explain the substance of the earlier decision.
Motion
On July 12, 2023, Goodman moved for relief from the final order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1). Rule 60(b)(1) permits a court to provide relief from a judgment based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, and the opinion states that it can also be used to correct legal errors made by the court. Such relief is extraordinary and requires exceptional circumstances.
Ruling
Judge Analisa Torres denied Goodman’s motion. The court found that Goodman had not met the high standard required for relief and that he sought to relitigate matters already adjudicated by the court and Judge Cott. The clerk of court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 250.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.