Amelio v. Houri
- Robert Lehrburger
- 1:22-cv-00975
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Amelio v. Houri, Magistrate Judge Lehrburger terminated Plaintiffs’ reconsideration motion and warned that further filings could bring sanctions.
The plaintiffs, including Carmine P. Amelio, Alfonso Amelio, and Paul Amelio, were affected by the termination of the motion and the warning about possible future sanctions.
What happened
In Amelio v. Houri, the plaintiffs filed another motion asking the court to reconsider an earlier decision that had denied reconsideration.
The court noted that the plaintiffs had already been told they could not seek reconsideration of a decision denying reconsideration. It also warned them not to continue filing motions the court considered frivolous and vexatious.
Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion and warned that continued filings could lead to sanctions, including an order restricting future filings.
The detailed version
- Amelio v. Houri · No. 1:22-cv-00975
- Robert Lehrburger
- Mar. 25, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration at Docket 95. The motion sought reconsideration of a decision that had denied an earlier motion for reconsideration. The court stated that the plaintiffs previously had been informed that they could not move to reconsider a decision denying reconsideration.
Court’s action
The order does not separately state that the current motion was “denied.” It directs the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at Docket 95. The court also warned the plaintiffs not to continue filing motions that it characterized as frivolous and vexatious. The court stated that failure to stop could result in sanctions, including a filing injunction, which would restrict future filings. The order also notes that the plaintiffs were representing themselves.
Disposition
Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger directed the Clerk of Court to terminate Docket 95. The order did not impose sanctions or a filing injunction at that time.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.