Marquez v. Silver
- Andrew Carter
- 1:18-cv-07315
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Marquez v. Silver, Judge Carter issued an indicative ruling that he would not grant Marquez’s late reconsideration motion, while stating the court lacked jurisdiction to decide it.
The ruling affected Marquez’s pending request for reconsideration and informed the related appeal; it stated that the district court would not grant reconsideration if the appeals court returned the matter.
What happened
Marquez sued Silver and other defendants, alleging sex- and race-based harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. The court had dismissed Marquez’s Title VII claims in 2021 and later dismissed the remaining claims as a sanction for missed deadlines and discovery obligations. Marquez appealed and then moved for reconsideration of the later judgment.
Because Marquez filed the reconsideration motion more than 28 days after judgment, the court said it lacked jurisdiction to decide that motion while the appeal was pending. Marquez asked the court for an indicative ruling—a statement about how it would rule if the appeals court sent the matter back.
The court stated that it would not grant reconsideration. It said Marquez waived objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation by failing to object on time and that, in any event, Marquez’s arguments lacked merit. Judge Carter issued the indicative ruling on March 4, 2024.
The detailed version
- Marquez v. Silver · No. 1:18-cv-07315
- Andrew Carter
- Mar. 4, 2024
Background
Marquez filed the action without a lawyer, alleging that Silver and other defendants engaged in sex- and race-based harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. The court dismissed Marquez’s Title VII claims on April 2, 2021. On February 17, 2023, the court adopted a magistrate judge’s amended report and recommendation and dismissed the remaining claims with prejudice as a sanction for failing to meet several deadlines and discovery obligations. Judgment was entered the same day.
Marquez appealed the judgment on March 23, 2023, and filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) for reconsideration the following day. The court noted that the motion was filed more than 28 days after judgment.
Jurisdiction and indicative ruling
The court explained that a notice of appeal generally transfers control over the appealed issues to the appeals court. Under the rules governing appeals, a timely Rule 60 motion can delay the effectiveness of a notice of appeal, but only when the motion is filed within 28 days after judgment and the notice of appeal is filed before the district court resolves the motion. Because Marquez’s motion was filed more than 28 days after judgment, the court held that it presently lacked jurisdiction to decide the reconsideration motion itself.
The court nevertheless held that it had jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1 to issue an indicative ruling. An indicative ruling tells the appeals court whether the district court would defer, deny, or grant a pending motion if the appeals court returned the matter for that purpose.
Ruling
The court stated that it would not grant Marquez’s motion for reconsideration. It said Marquez waived objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation by failing to object on time under Rule 72. The court also stated that Marquez’s arguments were without merit and that the magistrate judge’s opinion contained no error. The order therefore provided an indicative ruling against reconsideration but did not itself decide the Rule 60 motion.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.