Nicholson v. The Bank of New York Mellon
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:22-cv-03177
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Nicholson v. Bank of New York, Judge Gardephe denied reconsideration because Nicholson repeated arguments the court had already rejected.
Harriet Nicholson’s motion for reconsideration was denied; the Bank of New York was the opposing defendant named in the opinion’s caption.
What happened
In Nicholson v. Bank of New York, Harriet Nicholson asked the court to reconsider its February 21, 2024, denial of her motion to alter or amend a judgment.
Nicholson argued that she was not trying to relitigate fraud claims. She said she was pursuing an equitable remedy under Rule 60 and the fraud-on-the-court doctrine to correct what she described as a discrepancy in an amended judgment from a Texas case concerning title to property.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe denied the motion for reconsideration. The court said reconsideration is not a chance to repeat arguments already rejected or present arguments that could have been raised earlier, and found that Nicholson’s arguments were identical to those rejected in several earlier orders. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Nicholson v. The Bank of New York Mellon · No. 1:22-cv-03177
- Paul Gardephe
- Mar. 6, 2024
Background
Harriet Nicholson filed a motion asking the court to reconsider its February 21, 2024, denial of her motion to alter or amend judgment. The motion was filed under Southern District of New York Local Rule 6.3.
Nicholson’s arguments
Nicholson argued that her request was not an attempt to relitigate fraud claims. Instead, she characterized it as an independent equitable action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 and the fraud-on-the-court doctrine. She relied on authorities discussing the flexibility of that doctrine.
Nicholson referred to proceedings in an earlier Texas case. She asserted that statements made during those proceedings indicated that she should again be recognized as the titleholder and that counsel had agreed to prepare a judgment reflecting that result. She argued that the later amended final judgment did not match those statements. She also cited an August 2022 hearing in which Judge Katharine Parker discussed a possible title problem and the possibility that the Texas court had failed to address quiet title.
Nicholson asked the court to reconsider its earlier ruling to prevent what she described as a serious injustice.
Court’s ruling
The court stated that a motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity to repeat arguments previously rejected or to raise new facts, issues, or arguments that could have been presented earlier. It found that Nicholson had advanced arguments identical to those rejected in several previous orders in the case, citing Docket Numbers 105, 108, and 128.
The court therefore denied the motion for reconsideration. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at Docket Number 129.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.