Nicholson v. The Bank of New York Mellon
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:22-cv-03177
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 17
In Nicholson v. Bank of New York Mellon, Judge Gardephe denied Harriet Nicholson’s judicial-notice request as moot because her appeal removed the issue from district-court control.
Harriet Nicholson’s request for judicial notice was not considered because the court ruled that her appeal deprived the district court of jurisdiction over the relevant issues. The Bank of New York Mellon was the defendant in the federal case.
What happened
In Nicholson v. The Bank of New York Mellon, Harriet Nicholson, representing herself, asked the court to take notice of records from an earlier Texas case. She argued that an amended Texas judgment did not match the judge’s oral ruling because it omitted restoring her ownership rights and awarding court costs.
Nicholson had filed a notice of appeal concerning the dismissal of her federal case, the resulting judgment, and later requests for relief. The records she submitted included Texas judgments and documents about court costs.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe ruled that the appeal removed the relevant issues from the district court’s control. He therefore denied Nicholson’s request as moot and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Nicholson v. The Bank of New York Mellon · No. 1:22-cv-03177
- Paul Gardephe
- Mar. 29, 2024
Background
On March 21, 2024, Harriet Nicholson, proceeding without a lawyer, asked the court to take judicial notice of documents from a prior related Texas proceeding. Judicial notice allows a court to recognize certain facts or court records without requiring the usual proof. Nicholson described this federal case as an action concerning an amended Texas judgment. She asserted that the amended judgment did not follow the oral ruling because it omitted reinstatement of her ownership rights and an award of court costs.
The materials attached to her request included Texas judgments and itemized cost documents. One Texas judgment stated that certain recorded instruments were invalid and void, awarded Nicholson court costs, and dismissed her remaining claims with prejudice. The attached correspondence also concerned an agreed amount of court costs.
Jurisdiction and Appeal
Before Nicholson filed the judicial-notice request, she filed a notice of appeal on March 18, 2024, and an amended notice of appeal on March 19, 2024. The appeal concerned, among other matters, the court’s August 28, 2023 order adopting Magistrate Judge Parker’s Report and Recommendation and dismissing the case, the January 17, 2024 judgment, and the February 21, 2024 order denying later requests for relief.
The court explained that filing a notice of appeal generally transfers authority over the appealed issues to the court of appeals and removes the district court’s control over those issues. Because Nicholson’s appeal included the order granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss and the final judgment, the district court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to address her most recent request.
Disposition
Judge Gardephe denied Nicholson’s motion as moot. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion, identified as Docket No. 134. The opinion did not decide whether Nicholson’s interpretation of the Texas judgment was correct.
Read the full 17-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.