Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Industria de Diseno Textil SA
-
Order | Filed: June 11, 2024 | Entered: June 11, 2024 Grant et al v. Adult Protective Service
Civil Rights: Other | New York Eastern
Order on Motion for Reconsideration
ORDER: The Court is in receipt of 57 Plaintiff's notice of subject matter and appellate jurisdiction. The Court notes that it previously denied Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal and motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. (See 5/23/24 Dkt. Order). As such, the Court construes 57 Plaintiff's notice as a motion for reconsideration.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) allows courts to relieve a party from a final judgment or order on the basis of several specified circumstances, including "(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence...; (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged...; or (6) any other reason justifying relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). "The standard for granting [a motion for reconsideration] is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked... that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court." Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). Moreover, such a motion will not be granted absent the demonstration of "extraordinary circumstances." Stevens v. Miller, 676 F.3d 62, 67 (2d Cir. 2012); see also Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir. 2008) (explaining that Rule 60(b) is "a mechanism for extraordinary judicial relief invoked only if the moving party demonstrates exceptional circumstances." (internal quotation marks omitted)).
The Court has reviewed 67 Plaintiff's notice and finds that Plaintiff provides no valid basis for reconsideration of the Court's denial of Plaintiff's 55 motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal or 56 motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. (See 5/23/24 Dkt. Order.) Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 6/11/2024. (MLB)
-
Notice | Filed: June 10, 2024 | Entered: June 10, 2024 Grant et al v. Adult Protective Service
Civil Rights: Other | New York Eastern
Notice(Other)
NOTICE entitled Statement of Subject Matter And Appellate Jurisdiction In Response to the Court's Order dtd. 5/23/24 on Motion for Extension of Time to File, and Order on Motion for Leave to Appeal In forma pauperis, filed by Elizabeth Grant. (MLR)
-
Misc | Filed: June 07, 2024 | Entered: June 07, 2024 IN RE: Bard Implanted Port Catheter Products Liability Litigation
Personal Injury: Prod. Liability | Arizona
Remark (Public)
Remark: Member Case CV-24-1361-PHX-DGC has been consolidated into Lead Case MDL-23-3081 on this date. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAP)
Stay ahead of the curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
- Archive of over 450,000 articles
- Database of over 2.1 million cases
- 62,000+ organization-specific pages.
- Daily and real-time news and case alerts on organizations, industries, and customized search queries.
- Significant legal events involving law firms, companies, industries, and government agencies.
- Learn more
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login