Gurvey v. Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman PC et al, No. 1:2006cv01202 - Document 436 (S.D.N.Y. 2021)

Court Description: MEMO ENDORSED ORDER denying 435 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 409 Clerk's Judgment filed by Amy R. Gurvey. ENDORSEMENT: Application DENIED as untimely. Plaintiff seeks to vacate the judgment entered on July 7, 2017, under Rule 60 (b). Plaintiff's motion is based largely on new evidence, the evidence of a patent. Rule 60(c)(1) provides that a motion under Rule 60(b) for reasons of newly discovered evidence must be filed "no more than a year after the entry of the jud gment." Here, Plaintiff filed the motion more than four years after the entry of judgment. To the extent Plaintiff's motion is based on other reasons under Rule 60(b)(6)'s catch-all provision, it still must be "made within a reaso nable time." Fed. Rule. 60(c)(1) ("A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time...."). Plaintiff's motion is devoid of facts or argument to support finding that it was made within a reasonable time. Because Pla intiff's Rule 60(b) motion to vacate is denied as untimely, Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend is also denied. "It is well established that a party seeking to file an amended complaint post-judgment must first have the judgment vac ated or set aside pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or 60(b)." Metzler Inv. GmbH v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 970 F.3d 133, 142 (2d Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at Dkt. No. 435 and to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 12/2/2021) (mml) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.