Nicholson v. The Bank of New York Mellon ( 2024 )

UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT SOUTHERNDISTRICT OF NEW YORK Harriet Nicholson, Plaintiff CivilAction:1:22-cv-3177 v. Bank of NewYork, MOTION FORRECONSIDERATION Defendant. TotheCourt: Plaintiff, HarrietNicholson,respectfully submitsthis Motion for Reconsiderationandurges this HonorableCourt toreview thefollowing compelling factsandlegalarguments: On February21,2024,the courtdeniedPlaintiff's Motionto AlterorAmendJudgment.Plaintiff filesher timelyMotion forReconsiderationpursuant toLocalRule6.3. Contraryto thecourt'sinterpretation,Ms. Nicholson'spursuitwas notanattempt torelitigate fraud claimsbutrather anindependentequitable actionunder Rule60andthefraud onthecourt doctrine.This actionwasaimedat rectifyingamanifestinjustice perpetuatedinthe priorTexas action,ensuring thatthe"Amended FinalJudgment"truly reflected thecourt's decision.Ms. Nicholson firmlybelievesthat thecircumstancessurrounding theTexas actionnecessitated equitableinterventionto preventfurther injustice. TheprinciplesoutlinedinLeber-Krebs,Inc. v. Capitol Recs.andHazel-Atlas GlassCo. v.Hartford-EmpireCo. underscoretheflexibility ofthe "fraudonthecourt" doctrineto addressnewsituations demandingequitableremediesand correction of injustices.SeeLeber-Krebs, Inc. v.Capitol Recs.,779F.2d 895,900 (2dCir.1985) citing Hazel-AtlasGlass Co.v. Hartford-EmpireCo., 322U.S.238,249-50, 64 S.Ct.997, 1002-03, 88L.Ed. 1250(1944), (Hazel-Atlas deliberatelydidnot definethemetes andboundsof this "fraudonthecourt"doctrine,butit didmake clearthat it hasalways been"characterized by flexibility whichenables itto meetnewsituationswhich demandequitable intervention, andto accord allthereliefnecessary tocorrecttheparticular injusticesinvolved inthesesituations." Id. at248,64S.Ct. at1002.) Despiteexplicitexchanges during theTexas actionindicatingthat Ms. Nicholsonshould be recognized asthetitleholder, andassurancesfromcounselto draftajudgmentreflecting this, the subsequent "AmendedFinal Judgment"failed toalign withthecourt's priordeclarations. This discrepancyhighlights acritical oversightthat must berectified toupholdthe integrityof the judicialprocess. On August18,2017,thefollowing exchangestookplaceinthe Texas action. THE COURT:So whatthejudgmentshould reflectisthat she'sback tobeingtitleholder… (Dkt. 61-1 Page 163,lines5-6) MR. DANNER:Yes,sir.I willdraft thatjudgment.I willprovidea copytothe plaintiff, andI'll make surethatthere's aprovision for costsbeingawardedand makingsurethat there's asingle documentthat canberecordedto puttitleback intothe plaintiff. (Dkt61-1, 165,lines14-18). Notably,onAugust11,2022, JudgeKatharine Parkeraptly recognizedthe necessity of acknowledgingMs.Nicholson's titleduring opencourtproceedings. JudgeParker's acknowledgmentunderscores thepotential error infailingto addressquiet titleissuesarising from theTexasCourt's proceedings,further emphasizing theneed for equitableintervention stated inrelevant part: THE COURT: Okay, so Ms. Nicholson, I think, let me just translate. Mr. Scibetta, what I’m understanding is there’s a problem with the title because, because although the deed that Nationstar or you had was, even though it was voided, there also had to be a return or a recognition of quiettitle forMs. Nicholson. Sothere’s animpediment becauseof whattranspired in Texas Court. And it’s quite possible because of all of the proceedings and the back and forth that the judge might have gotten it wrong about or made an error in notdoingthe quiettitle and sometimesif there’sa lot of filingsand soforth,that couldhave beenan issue. Plaintiff Ms. Nicholson finds herself in a precarious position, as she lacks any other legal recourse to correct the clerical variance in the Texas' Amended Final Judgment. The failure to rectify this discrepancy poses a significant risk of perpetuating a grave miscarriage of justice, denying Ms. Nicholson the rightful resolution she deserves. PRAYER Tn light of these compelling circumstances, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Honorable Court grants the Motion for Reconsideration and reconsiders Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. Doing so is imperative to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice and ensure that Ms. Nicholson's rights are upheld in accordance with the principles of fairness and equity. Respectfully submitted, /s/Harriet Nicholson MEMO ENDORSED: A motion for reconsideration is not “an occasion for repeating old arguments previously rejected nor an opportunity for making new arguments that could have been previously advanced[.]” Associated Press v. U.S. Dep't of Def., □ F. Supp. 2d 17, 19 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). It is also not a way to “advance new facts, issues or arguments not previously presente the Court.’” Polsby v. St. Martin's Press, Inc., No. 97 Civ. 960 (MBM), 2000 WL 98057, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2000) (quotin Morse/Diesel, Inc. v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Maryland, 768 F. Su 115, 116 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)). Here, Plaintiff advances arguments identical to those rejected by several of this Court’s previous ord in this case. (Dkt. Nos. 105, 108, 128) Accordingly, □□□□□□□□□□□ motion for reconsideration is denied. The Clerk of Court is direc to terminate the motion at Dkt. No. 129. SO ORDERED. oul 2 Aaodphe Paul G. Gardephe United States District Judge Date: March 6, 2024