United States District Court, Eastern District of New York
For Plaintiff: Thomas A. McFarland, Esq. United States Attorney’s Office Eastern District of New York.
For Defendants Howard Salten, pro se.
Margaret Salten: No appearances.
Patricia Salten: No appearances.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
JOANNA SEYBERT, U.S.D.J.
Pending before the Court are: (1) plaintiff United States of America’s (the “Government”) motion to correct the judgment entered in this action on April 19, 2007 (Docket Entry 128); and (2) pro se defendant Howard Salten’s (“Defendant” or “Mr. Salten”) cross-motion to vacate the judgment and for leave to file an amended answer (Docket Entry 134). For the following reasons, the Government’s motion to correct the judgment is GRANTED, and Mr. Salten’s cross-motion to vacate the judgment and for leave to file an amended answer is DENIED.
The Court presumes familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this case. Briefly, however, this is a foreclosure action related to premises located at 215 Fresh Pond Road in Southampton, New York. Defendant Patricia Salten executed a promissory note and mortgage for the property in favor of the Farmers Home Administration, an agency of the United States now known as Rural Development. Mr. Salten and his former spouse, Defendant Margaret Salten, later assumed the mortgage and the underlying promissory note when they bought the property from Patricia Salten. Mr. Salten answered the Complaint on September 16, 2004. (Docket Entry 53.) No other Defendant answered or otherwise appeared in the action.
By Memorandum and Order dated October 25, 2006, this Court granted the Government’s motion for summary judgment against Mr. Salten. (Docket Entry 98.) On April 19, 2007, the Clerk of the Court entered a judgment against all Defendants, even though the Government had only moved against Mr. Salten (the “April 19, 2007 Judgment”). (Docket Entry 102.)
On May 24, 2007, Mr. Salten appealed the April 19, 2007 Judgment to the Second Circuit. (Docket Entry 104.) The Government moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the judgment was not final. On June 24, 2008, the Second Circuit denied the Government’s motion to dismiss without stating its reason for the denial, but also dismissed Mr. Salten’s appeal because he did not present any “arguably meritorious issue[s].” (Mandate, Docket Entry 107.)
According to the Government, when it began to prepare a motion for judgment of foreclosure and sale against the remaining Defendants, it learned that Brookhaven Memorial Hospital, which had not been named as a defendant herein, had a lien on the property against Mr. Salten. (Pl.’s Br., Docket Entry 129, at 4.) The Government also learned that Farmers Home Administration had released Defendant Patricia Salten from liability on the mortgage and promissory note when she sold the property to Mr. Salten and Margaret Salten. (Pl.’s Br. at 4.) Thus, on April 5, 2013, the Government filed a motion for leave to amend the Complaint to include Brookhaven Memorial Hospital as a necessary party and to remove Patricia Salten as a defendant so that the Government could foreclose on the property. (Docket Entry 108.)
On April 29, 2013, this Court denied the Government’s motion to amend the Complaint in this action, on the grounds that judgment had already been entered in favor of the Government and the case closed. (Docket Entry 112.) On May 14, 2013, the Government moved for reconsideration of that Order, arguing that “the Court overlooked the fact that although summary judgment had been granted against Mr. Salten, judgment had not been granted against any other defendant, therefore the judgment against Mr. Salten was not a final judgment.” (Pl.’s Br., Docket Entry 115, at 1.)
By Memorandum and Order dated September 30, 2013, the Court denied the Government’s motion for reconsideration because the April 19, 2007 Judgment had been entered in this action against all Defendants, not just Mr. Salten, thus making the judgment final. United States v. Salten, No. 03-CV-0578, 2013 WL 5460632, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2013). However, the Court also stated that “[t]o the extent that the Government believes that this may have been a clerical mistake, it may file a motion to amend the judgment under Rule 60(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Id. at *2 n.1.
The Government then filed the present motion to correct the April 19, 2007 Judgment so that it would be as against Mr. Salten only. (Docket Entry 128.) Mr. Salten did not oppose the Government’s motion. Instead, he filed a cross-motion to vacate the April 19, ...