Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Watts

United States District Court, Eastern District of New York

January 23, 2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
WILMA M. HUNT WATTS a/k/a WILMA M. HUNT, Defendant.

For the Plaintiff: MICHAEL T. SUCHER Michael T. Sucher, Esq.

For the Defendant: LAW OFFICES OF ALBERT VAN-LARE Albert Van-Lare, Esq., Emily Anne Hariharan, Esq.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DENIS R. HURLEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff the United States of America (“the Government” or “plaintiff”) commenced this action against defendant Wilma M. Hunt Watts a/k/a Wilma M. Hunt (“Watts” or “defendant”) to collect defendant’s outstanding balance on her student loans. On February 12, 2007, the Court approved a Consent Judgment between the parties. On March 28, 2007, the Government filed a motion for a writ of continuing garnishment as to Nassau Healthcare Corporation (“Nassau Healthcare Garnishment”). Defendant did not object to the Nassau Healthcare Garnishment, and the Court granted the Government’s motion on July 24, 2007. On January 31, 2014, the Government filed a motion for writ of continuing garnishment as to J.P. Morgan Chase Bank (“Chase Bank Garnishment”). On February 19, 2014, in opposition to the Chase Bank Garnishment, defendant submitted an objection stating that defendant sought to vacate the 2007 Consent Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 60(b). On February 26, 2014, this Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown. On August 5, 2014, Judge Brown issued a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) recommending that defendant’s motion to vacate the Consent Judgment be denied. Presently before the Court are defendant’s August 19, 2014 objections to that R & R. For the reasons set forth below, Watts’s objections to Judge Brown’s ruling are denied.

BACKGROUND

The Court assumes familiarity with the facts and procedural history as set forth in Magistrate Judge Brown’s Report and Recommendation.

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standard

Rule 72(b)(3) provides that “a district judge must determine de novo any part of [a] magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). “The de novo review requires the district court neither to ‘rehear the contested testimony’ nor to ‘conduct a new hearing on contested issues.’ ” Gutman v. Klein, 2010 WL 4916722, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2010) (quoting United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 674–75 (1980)). Moreover, even on a de novo review, a district court will generally “refuse to consider arguments, case law and/or evidentiary material which could have been, but was not, presented to the magistrate judge in the first instance.” Kennedy v. Adamo, 2006 WL 3704784, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2006) (quoting Haynes v. Quality Markets, 2003 WL 23610575, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2003)) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).

II. Watts’s Objections

Watts objects to Judge Brown’s R & R on the grounds that it “failed to include any analysis or mention of Defendant’s argument regarding the consolidation of her student loans which would in turn make the [consent] judgment void in this case.” (Objs. at 2.) Id. According to defendant, she “believed she had a defense to this case [based on the fact that all of her student loans were consolidated and not in default at the time of the Consent Judgment] from the beginning and the Defendant’s previous counsel completely ignored that to Defendant’s extreme detriment.” (Id. at 4.) Additionally, defendant “objects to the Magistrate’s finding that [her] motion was not made within a reasonable time, and that Defendant’s circumstances do not constitute a clear explanation of why Defendant was unable to make a motion to vacate until this year.” (Id.)

Defendant moves to vacate the Consent Judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) and 60(b)(6), providing that “the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” if “the judgment is void” or for “any other reason that justifies relief.” “A motion under Rule 60(b) is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Velez v. Vassallo, 203 F.Supp.2d 312, 333 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (citing Mendell on Behalf of Viacom, Inc. v. Gollust, 909 F.2d 724, 731 (2d Cir. 1990)). Nonetheless, the Second Circuit has cautioned that Rule 60(b) provides “extraordinary judicial relief” to be granted “only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances.” Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 61 (2d Cir. 1986); see also Emp’rs Mut. Cas. Co. v. Key Pharm., 75 F.3d 815, 824–25 (2d Cir. 1996) (“A movant under Rule 60(b) must demonstrate ‘exceptional circumstances' justifying the extraordinary relief requested.”). In evaluating a Rule 60(b) motion, the courts of this circuit also require that the evidence in support of the motion be highly convincing, that the movant show good cause for the failure to act sooner, and that no undue hardship be imposed on the other parties as a result. See, e.g., Kotlicky v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 817 F.2d 6, 9 (2d Cir. 1987); Williams v. New York City Dep't of Corr., 219 F.R.D. 78, 84 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).

Rule 60(c) provides that motions made pursuant to subsections (b)(4) and (b)(6) “must be made within a reasonable time . . . after the entry of the judgment.” What constitutes a reasonable time is ascertained through scrutiny of “the particular circumstances of the case, and balanc[ing] the interest in finality with the reasons for delay.” PRC Harris, Inc. v. Boeing Co., 700 F.2d 894, 897 (2d Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 936 (1983). Moreover, relief from a judgment may not be granted to one “who does not act with due diligence.” Questrom v. Federated Dep't Stores, Inc., 192 F.R.D. 128, 132 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). Furthermore, to justify relief under subsection (6), it must be shown “that the [moving] party is faultless in the delay.” Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 393 (1993).

Here, the Consent Judgment that defendant wishes to vacate was entered on February 12, 2007. Moreover, on July 24, 2007, the Court granted the Government’s motion for a writ of garnishment as to Nassau Health Care Corporation, where defendant was employed. Defendant made no objections to the judgment or the Nassau Health Care ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.