Order | Filed: December 30, 2025
| Entered: December 30, 2025
Rumain v. Gregoris Motors, Inc. et al
Other Statutory Actions | New York Eastern
Order on Motion to Stay Order on Motion to Alter Judgment
ORDER denying 147 , 148 MOTIONS:
Familiarity with the procedural history and background of this action is assumed herein. As particularly relevant here: (1) by Order dated October 14, 2025, the Court adopted the September 22, 2025 Report and Recommendation ("R&R") issued by Magistrate Judge Taryn A. Merkl and, accordingly, granted Defendants' motion to enforce settlement and denied pro se Plaintiff's motion to prevent issuance of an IRS Form 1099, see October 14, 2025 Order (noting, inter alia, that no objection to the R&R was filed); see also R&R, ECF No. 145; and (2) on October 15, 2025, judgment issued, see Judgment, ECF No. 146.
Pending before the Court are two motions filed by Plaintiff on November 12, 2025 – one styled "Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification and Consideration, and for Temporary Stay of Issuance of IRS Form 1099 Pending Resolution Thereof," see ECF No. 147, and one styled "Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)," see ECF No. 148 (also referencing Local Civil Rule 6.3).
By way of each of the instant motions, which the Court liberally construes in light of Plaintiff's pro se status, Plaintiff seeks to have the Court prevent Defendants from issuing any IRS Forms 1099 relating to the settlement in this action – in this regard, Plaintiff appears to be seeking partial reconsideration of the Court's October 14, 2025 Order. See generally ECF No. 147; ECF No. 148. By way of each of the instant motions, Plaintiff also seeks to have the Court determine that the settlement funds at issue are not taxable. See ECF No. 147 at 6; ECF No. 148 at 5.
For the reasons set forth below, the instant motions, ECF Nos. 147 and 148, are DENIED.
The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration and for granting a motion brought pursuant to Rule 59(e) to alter or amend a judgment are the same – a party may obtain relief only when the party identifies an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See Cho v. Blackberry Ltd., 991 F.3d 155, 170-71 (2d Cir. 2021) (discussing standard for granting a motion for reconsideration); Metzler Inv. Gmbh v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 970 F.3d 133, 142-43 (2d Cir. 2020) (discussing standard for granting a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend a judgment); see also Local Civil Rule 6.3 (titled "Motions for Reconsideration"). Here, Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden of demonstrating entitlement to any of the relief sought. Plaintiff has not demonstrated an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Nothing in the instant motions alters the Court's conclusion that Plaintiff's motion to prevent issuance of an IRS Form 1099 was properly denied and nothing in the instant motions demonstrates that Plaintiff is entitled to a determination from the Court as to the taxability of the settlement funds at issue in this action – indeed, as Judge Merkl correctly noted, the Court is not at liberty to dictate how the settlement payment is taxed, see R&R at 15.
Although Plaintiff paid the filing fee to commence this action, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore denies in forma pauperis status for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
Ordered by Judge Diane Gujarati on 12/30/2025. (BLC)