Brevard v. Credit Suisse

S.D. New York

Brevard v. Credit Suisse

DecidedAugust 6, 2025

Docket1:23-cv-00428

StatusUnknown

This text of Brevard v. Credit Suisse (Brevard v. Credit Suisse) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brevard v. Credit Suisse, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: Sanne KK DATE FILED:_08/06/2025 MYRA L. BREVARD, : Plaintiff, : : 23-cv-428 (LJL) -V- : : ORDER CREDIT SUISSE, : Defendant. :

wn eK LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge: By order of January 3, 2024, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss this action and compel arbitration. Dkt. No. 44. The Court explained that Plaintiff was bound by her 2014 agreement to use Defendant’s Employment Dispute Resolution Program to resolve her dispute. Id. The Court entered a judgment that same day. Dkt. No. 45. On August 12, 2024, the Court denied a request from pro se Plaintiff for a temporary restraining order and a hearing regarding Defendant’s alleged misconduct in mediation or arbitration proceedings. Dkt. No. 52. The Court stated that Plaintiff had not made a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 for relief from judgment, “nor construing her motion . . . with the solicitude owed to pro se parties does there appear to be a basis for Rule 60 relief.” Jd. On March 14, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an order dismissing Plaintiff's appeal on the grounds that it lacked an arguable basis in law or fact. Dkt. No. 55. By letter dated June 16, 2025, Plaintiff requests that the Court “force your ruling to mediate with JAMS or to bring it back to your court for mediation,” citing alleged delay and misconduct by Defendant in mediation. Dkt. No. 56. Again construing Plaintiff's letter as a

motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60, Plaintiff has not shown cause for the Court to grant relief under any of the prongs of that Rule. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60; Thai-Lao Lignite (Thailand) Co. v. Gov’t of Lao People's Democratic Republic, 864 F.3d 172, 183 (2d Cir. 2017) (“The burden is on the moving party to demonstrate that it 1s entitled to relief, and courts generally . . . require that the evidence in support of the motion to vacate a final judgment be highly convincing.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to the Plaintiff who is proceeding pro se. SO ORDERED. gf ofl y Dated: August 6, 2025 el MO na New York, New York LEWIS J. LIMAN United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: Sanne KK DATE FILED:_08/06/2025 MYRA L. BREVARD, : Plaintiff, : : 23-cv-428 (LJL) -V- : : ORDER CREDIT SUISSE, : Defendant. :

wn eK LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge: By order of January 3, 2024, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss this action and compel arbitration. Dkt. No. 44. The Court explained that Plaintiff was bound by her 2014 agreement to use Defendant’s Employment Dispute Resolution Program to resolve her dispute. Id. The Court entered a judgment that same day. Dkt. No. 45. On August 12, 2024, the Court denied a request from pro se Plaintiff for a temporary restraining order and a hearing regarding Defendant’s alleged misconduct in mediation or arbitration proceedings. Dkt. No. 52. The Court stated that Plaintiff had not made a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 for relief from judgment, “nor construing her motion . . . with the solicitude owed to pro se parties does there appear to be a basis for Rule 60 relief.” Jd. On March 14, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an order dismissing Plaintiff's appeal on the grounds that it lacked an arguable basis in law or fact. Dkt. No. 55. By letter dated June 16, 2025, Plaintiff requests that the Court “force your ruling to mediate with JAMS or to bring it back to your court for mediation,” citing alleged delay and misconduct by Defendant in mediation. Dkt. No. 56. Again construing Plaintiff's letter as a

motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60, Plaintiff has not shown cause for the Court to grant relief under any of the prongs of that Rule. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60; Thai-Lao Lignite (Thailand) Co. v. Gov’t of Lao People's Democratic Republic, 864 F.3d 172, 183 (2d Cir. 2017) (“The burden is on the moving party to demonstrate that it 1s entitled to relief, and courts generally . . . require that the evidence in support of the motion to vacate a final judgment be highly convincing.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to the Plaintiff who is proceeding pro se. SO ORDERED. gf ofl y Dated: August 6, 2025 el MO na New York, New York LEWIS J. LIMAN United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Brevard v. Credit Suisse, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brevard-v-credit-suisse-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack