Case Activity (2131)

1. Appeal | Filed: June 30, 2026 | Entered: June 30, 2026 Amelio v. Quicken Loans, Inc. et al

   | New York Southern

   USCA Order - Other

   ORDER of USCA (Certified Copy) as to 246 Notice of Appeal filed by Alfonso Amelio, Carmine Amelio USCA Case Number 24-1619. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the district courts September 29, 2023 judgment is AFFIRMED IN PART and VACATED IN PART, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order. Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk USCA for the Second Circuit. Certified: 6/30/2026. (tp)

2. Order | Filed: June 29, 2026 | Entered: June 29, 2026 Washington et al v. State of Connecticut et al

   Civil Rights: Other | Connecticut

   Order on Motion to Vacate Order on Motion to Stay

   ORDER. The Washingtons have filed a Motion to Vacate or Set Aside Order 39 and an Emergency Motion to Stay Pending Reconsideration and Appeal 41 . These motions ask the court to vacate its June 17, 2026 Order 35 holding that the Washingtons' purported removals to this court were procedurally improper and to order a stay of the foreclosure and eviction proceedings in state court. ECF No. 39 , at 5; ECF No. 41 , at 9.
   
   The Washingtons argue that the court should do so because (1) the Order made "a fraudulent misrepresentation of fact" when it described the Complaint 1 as being 600 pages long, and (2) the court "erred by failing to liberally construe [the Washingtons'] pro se pleadings" as required" by law. ECF No. 39 , at 4; ECF No. 41 , at 5-6.
   
   The court liberally construes ECF No. 39 as a motion for reconsideration. The Second Circuit has repeatedly held that "[t]he standard for granting... a motion [for reconsideration] is strict." Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). A motion for reconsideration "will generally be denied unless the [movant] 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." Id. Courts have granted motions for reconsideration in limited circumstances, including: (1) where there has been an "intervening change of controlling law"; (2) where new evidence has become available; or (3) where there is a "need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992) (quoting 18 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure § 4478 at 790).
   
   The Washingtons do not meet this standard. The categorization of the length of the Washingtons' pleading in this case, which includes a 29-page Complaint and 568 pages of exhibits, ECF Nos. 1 - 2 , has no bearing on whether the removals in this case were proper, nor does it constitute "new evidence." The court's Order evaluated the Washingtons' arguments, applied the law regarding removal, and determined that the Washingtons' cases had not been properly removed. That the court did not distinguish the length of the attachments to the Complaint from the Complaint itself in describing the length of the filing at ECF Nos. 1 and 2 is irrelevant to the court's conclusions.
   
   Moreover, the Washingtons' repeated assertion that the court held their "pro se pleadings to the same stringent standards as those drafted by attorneys" is flatly incorrect. ECF No. 40 , at 8. The court "liberally construed" their pleadings as required by law and found them wanting because, as discussed in the Order 2129 additional result(s)