634 Fed.Appx. 337 (2nd Cir. 2016), 15-1512, Manolis v. Brecher
|Citation:||634 Fed.Appx. 337|
|Party Name:||Angie Joan Manolis, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Daniel Brecher, Defendant-Appellee|
|Attorney:||Angie Joan Manolis, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, Pro se, Athens, Greece. FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: Andrew W. Gefell and Robert J. Bergson, Abrams Garfinkel Margolis Bergson, LLP, New York, New York.|
|Judge Panel:||PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, DENNY CHIN, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||February 25, 2016|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|
This case was not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter and Not to be Cited as Precedent. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION SUMMARY ORDER). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Berman, J.).
Angie Joan Manolis, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, Pro se, Athens, Greece.
FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: Andrew W. Gefell and Robert J. Bergson, Abrams Garfinkel Margolis Bergson, LLP, New York, New York.
PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, DENNY CHIN, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff-Appellant Angie Joan Manolis, a foreign lawyer appearing pro se, appeals the denial of her Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Daniel Brecher on Manolis's breach of contract claim. In a previous order, we affirmed the grant of summary judgment and determined that we lacked jurisdiction to review district court orders issued before the entry of summary judgment because Manolis had failed to properly appeal them. See Manolis v. Brecher, 588 Fed.Appx. 85 (2d Cir. 2015) (summary order). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
We review the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. Meilleur v. Strong, 682 F.3d 56, 64 (2d Cir. 2012). " A district court abuses its discretion if it bases 'its ruling on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.'" Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Pub. Serv. Mut. Ins. Co., 609 F.3d 122, 127 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Transaero, Inc. v. La Fuerza Aerea Boliviana, 162 F.3d 724, 729 (2d Cir. 1998)).
" [T]he law of the case doctrine forecloses reconsideration of issues that were decided--or that could have been decided--during prior proceedings" in the same case. United States v. Williams, 475 F.3d 468, 471 (2d Cir. 2007). One branch of that doctrine, the mandate rule, " prevents re-litigation in the district court not only of matters expressly decided by the appellate...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP