Lavi v. MUFG Bank

S.D. New York

Lavi v. MUFG Bank

DecidedJanuary 28, 2025

Docket1:22-cv-03167

StatusUnknown

This text of Lavi v. MUFG Bank (Lavi v. MUFG Bank) 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

Lavi v. MUFG Bank, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

PIERRE LAVI, Plaintiff, 22-CV-3167 (JPO) -v- ORDER MUFG BANK, et al., Defendants.

J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge: Pro se plaintiff Pierre Lavi has, since this Court’s orders of dismissal (ECF Nos. 41 and 42), filed a series of letters that appear to be requests for reconsideration (ECF Nos. 43-47). “A motion for reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources.” Drapkin v. Mafco Consol. Grp., Inc., 818 F. Supp. 2d 678, 695 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (citation and quotations omitted). To prevail, the movant must demonstrate either (i) an intervening change in controlling law; (ii) the availability of new evidence; or (iii) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Jacob v. Duane Reade, Inc., 293 F.R.D. 578, 580–81 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citation omitted); see also Cioce v. County of Westchester, 128 Fed. App’x 181, 185 (2d Cir. 2005) (“Generally, motions for reconsideration are not granted unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked—matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.”). Having reviewed the record and Mr. Lavi’s letters, the Court concludes that it overlooked neither a controlling issue of law nor a crucial fact in the record. Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider is therefore denied. Because this case 1s no longer active, Mr. Lavi is directed to stop filing related materials, and is notified that the Court will no longer docket additional motions for reconsideration or requests for relief not permitted under the law. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Mr. Lavi at 10 Auserehl Ct., Huntington, NY 11743. SO ORDERED. Dated: January 28, 2025 New York, New York

United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

PIERRE LAVI, Plaintiff, 22-CV-3167 (JPO) -v- ORDER MUFG BANK, et al., Defendants.

J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge: Pro se plaintiff Pierre Lavi has, since this Court’s orders of dismissal (ECF Nos. 41 and 42), filed a series of letters that appear to be requests for reconsideration (ECF Nos. 43-47). “A motion for reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources.” Drapkin v. Mafco Consol. Grp., Inc., 818 F. Supp. 2d 678, 695 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (citation and quotations omitted). To prevail, the movant must demonstrate either (i) an intervening change in controlling law; (ii) the availability of new evidence; or (iii) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Jacob v. Duane Reade, Inc., 293 F.R.D. 578, 580–81 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citation omitted); see also Cioce v. County of Westchester, 128 Fed. App’x 181, 185 (2d Cir. 2005) (“Generally, motions for reconsideration are not granted unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked—matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.”). Having reviewed the record and Mr. Lavi’s letters, the Court concludes that it overlooked neither a controlling issue of law nor a crucial fact in the record. Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider is therefore denied. Because this case 1s no longer active, Mr. Lavi is directed to stop filing related materials, and is notified that the Court will no longer docket additional motions for reconsideration or requests for relief not permitted under the law. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Mr. Lavi at 10 Auserehl Ct., Huntington, NY 11743. SO ORDERED. Dated: January 28, 2025 New York, New York

United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lavi v. MUFG Bank, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lavi-v-mufg-bank-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack