Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Searching dockets in Stokesbury Fingold x
Alert me of new activity
All Case Activity Alerts Include: Answers, Appeals, Complaints, Motions, Orders, Trial Notes
Real Property: Foreclosure | Connecticut
Order on Motion to Amend/Correct
ORDER denying 132 Motion to Amend/Correct Amended Complaint. Plaintiff has filed a motion to amend her amended complaint, which was filed on June 6, 2025, to add parties "legally served but not in the revised motion of March 5, 2024." ECF No. 132 at 1. First, no motion, or amended complaint, was filed on March 5, 2024. Second, on July 28, 2025, the Court entered judgment in this action and closed the case. ECF No. 122 . Accordingly, there is no action in the district court a motion to amend could apply to. To the extent Plaintiff's motion to reopen can be construed as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), the Court denies it. "As a general matter, '[t]he filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance -- it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.'" United States v. Rogers, 101 F.3d 247, 251 (2d Cir. 1996) (quoting Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982)) (alterations in original). But the Second Circuit "allows a district court... to 'entertain and deny [a] rule 60(b) motion' without the circuit court's permission." King v. First American Investigations, Inc., 287 F.3d 91, 94 (2d Cir. 2002) (quoting Toliver v. Cnty. Of Sullivan, 957 F.2d 47, 49 (2d Cir. 1992)). The Court adopts the legal standard set forth in ECF No. 126 and finds that Plaintiff has not met it. Plaintiff's only justification for why she should be allowed to amend her complaint now is that she is pro se. ECF No. 132 at 1. This cause, absent any other mitigating circumstances, is insufficient. Accordingly, despite Plaintiff's pending appeal of final judgment in this action before the Second Circuit, ECF No. 127 , the Court properly entertains and denies Plaintiff's motion to the extent it can be construed as a motion to reopen this action. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 3/18/2026. (Valle, G)
Amend/Correct
MOTION to Amend/Correct 113 Amended Complaint by Carol Rothermel. Responses due by 4/7/2026 (Gaskins, A)
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login
Email (NOTE: Free email domains not supported)
First Name
Last Name
Job Title
Phone
PLEASE NOTE: A verification email will be sent to your address before you can access your trial.
Password (at least 8 characters required)
Confirm Password
Law360 UK may contact you in your professional capacity with information about our other products, services and events that we believe may be of interest.You’ll be able to update your communication preferences via the unsubscribe link provided within our communications.We take your privacy seriously. Please see our Privacy Policy.