615 Building Company LLC. v. Smith
- Analisa Torres
- 1:24-cv-00753
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In 615 (Building) Company LLC v. Smith, Judge Torres denied Smith’s effort to reopen the remanded case, which remains closed.
Louisa A. Smith’s requests to reopen or reconsider the remand were denied. The action remains closed, and further filings are limited as described in the order.
What happened
In 615 (Building) Company LLC v. Smith, Defendant Louisa A. Smith, representing herself, removed the action to federal court. The court later remanded it to state court because it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Smith then filed an “emergency amended notice of removal.”
The court treated that filing as requests to change the judgment, reconsider the remand, and obtain relief from the judgment. It denied each request because Smith did not show that the court had overlooked controlling law or facts, filed one request too late, or established a valid reason or extraordinary circumstances for relief.
Judge Torres denied Smith’s motion for reconsideration and closed the action. The court said the clerk would accept only filings directed to the Second Circuit in this case, warned that additional frivolous or meritless filings could lead to a show-cause order, and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees because the appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- 615 Building Company LLC. v. Smith · No. 1:24-cv-00753
- Analisa Torres
- Apr. 22, 2024
Background
On February 2, 2024, Defendant Louisa A. Smith, representing herself, removed this action to federal court. After giving Smith an opportunity to explain why the case should not be sent back to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, the court remanded the case on March 13, 2024. On April 14, Smith filed an “emergency amended notice of removal.”
The court liberally construed that filing as three requests: a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), a motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3, and a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
Rule 59(e) motion
A Rule 59(e) motion asks the court to change or amend a judgment. The court explained that Smith had to show that it had overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented to it. The court found that she had not made that showing and denied the Rule 59(e) motion.
Local Rule 6.3 motion
The court said that the standards for a Rule 59(e) motion and a Local Civil Rule 6.3 reconsideration motion are the same. It also stated that a Local Rule 6.3 motion must be filed within 14 days after the relevant court determination or judgment. The court found that Smith had not filed this motion within 14 days after the determination to remand her case and denied the motion under Local Rule 6.3.
Rule 60(b) motion
Rule 60(b) allows relief from an order or judgment for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct, a void judgment, satisfaction or reversal of the judgment, or another reason justifying relief. The court found that Smith had not shown that any of the first five grounds applied and denied relief under those provisions. The court also denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), finding that Smith had not demonstrated the extraordinary circumstances required for that provision.
Disposition
Judge Analisa Torres denied Smith’s motion for reconsideration. The action was closed. The clerk was directed to accept only documents directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court stated that, if Smith filed additional frivolous or meritless documents, it could require her to show cause why she should not be barred from filing further documents in the action. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.