Hunt v. Shaprio, DiCaro & Barak, LLC
5:20-cv-00330
N.D.N.Y.Aug 3, 2020Background
- Pro se plaintiff Jennifer L. Hunt sued Shapiro, DiCaro & Barak, LLC, an individual attorney (Ellis M. Oster), and Bank of America arising from a state-court mortgage foreclosure (complaint filed March 24, 2020).
- Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing among other grounds Rooker–Feldman, res judicata/collateral estoppel, statute-of-limitations, preemption, and failure to state a claim.
- The district court granted defendants’ joint motion to dismiss in full on July 6, 2020.
- Hunt filed a motion for reconsideration claiming the court misapplied Rooker–Feldman, incorrectly assumed she was the state-court plaintiff, showed bias favoring fellow BAR members, and that the court’s jurisdiction was procured by fraud.
- The court reviewed Local Rule 7.1(g) and precedent on reconsideration standards and found Hunt failed to identify controlling law or facts the court overlooked.
- The court denied the motion for reconsideration and ordered service of the decision on the parties (Order dated August 3, 2020).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reconsideration is warranted | Hunt: court erred and overlooked matters; merits require reexamination | Defendants: Hunt points to no controlling law or new facts that would change the outcome | Denied — Hunt failed to meet stringent reconsideration standard |
| Whether court misapplied Rooker–Feldman | Hunt: court misapplied doctrine and wrongly assumed identities of plaintiffs | Defendants: Rooker–Feldman and related defenses were properly applied | Denied — no basis shown to alter ruling |
| Whether alleged bias/favoritism or fraud warrants relief | Hunt: court gave unfair advantage to fellow BAR members and jurisdiction was procured by fraud | Defendants: no evidence of bias or fraud presented | Denied — allegations conclusory and not supported |
| Whether new evidence or change in controlling law exists | Hunt: implicitly asserts errors but offers no new controlling law or evidence | Defendants: no new law/evidence; prior decision stands | Denied — motion merely re-litigates issues already decided |
Key Cases Cited
- Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 1995) (motion for reconsideration standard; movant may not relitigate issues already decided)
- Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Color Tile, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand LLP, 322 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2003) (reconsideration may be appropriate for intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or to correct clear error)
- C–TC 9th Ave. P’ship v. Norton Co. (In re C–TC 9th Ave. P’ship), 182 B.R. 1 (N.D.N.Y. 1995) (reiterating the stringent requirements for a successful motion for reconsideration)