Pina v. United States
| Decision Date | 15 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20 Civ. 1371 (PAE)(BCM) |
| Parties | FREDERICK D. PINA, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
FREDERICK D. PINA, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.
No. 20 Civ. 1371 (PAE)(BCM)
United States District Court, S.D. New York
March 15, 2022
ORDER
PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, DISTRICT JUDGE:
Currently pending is a motion from pro se plaintiff Frederick D. Pina "to Oppose and Re-Instate Partial Claims." Dkt. 37 ("Mot."). Pina argues that he was prejudiced by the failure of the Court and defendant the United States of America (the "Government") to provide him with a copy of the April 20, 2021 Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Barbara C. Moses, United States Magistrate Judge, Dkt. 29 (the "April R&R"), which recommended granting the Government's partial motion to dismiss. Mot. Pina also argues that his previous attorney committed legal malpractice. Id.
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Judge Moses, which recommends that the Court deny Pifia's motion. Dkt. 41 (the "Report"). On December 8, 2021, Pina filed objections to the Report. Dkt. 43 ("Objections"). On December 21, 2021, the Government filed its response to Pifia's objections. Dkt. 47 ("Opp.").
For the reasons that follow, the Court adopts Judge Moses' recommendation and denies Pifia's motion to oppose the April R&R and re-instate partial claims.
I. Background
A. Factual and Procedural Background
The Court adopts the Report's detailed account of the facts and procedural history. The following summary captures the limited facts necessary for an assessment of the issues presented.
On February 14, 2020, Pina filed the complaint in this suit. It claimed that he was entitled to damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1346 etseq., following an accident with a United States Postal Service ("USPS") truck. It alleged that, on May 31, 2018, Pina had been driving a vehicle owned by his company, Japanese Juices, LLC ("Japanese Juices"), when the USPS truck recklessly struck his car, causing personal injury to him and damage to his vehicle, and forcing him to incur business-related losses. He alleged that he was entitled to compensatory damages of $146 million; attorneys' fees; $6, 000 for insurance reimbursement; $7, 000 for car repairs and storage costs; and $200, 000 of lost company income. See Dkt. 2 ("CompL"). In Pina's original administrative claim, presented to the Government, he sought damages only for personal injury and damage to his vehicle, but he further claimed before this Court that the injuries he sustained in the accident caused him to "abandon all his business operations," causing him to lose an opportunity to contract with Delta Air Lines for $146 million. See Id. ¶ 8; Dkt. 16-1.[1]
On September 15, 2020, the Government filed a partial motion to dismiss, directed to the claims for damages in Pina's complaint beyond those for personal injury and damage to his vehicle. Dkt. 14. It argued that because Pina had failed to present any claims on behalf of
Japanese Juices to the USPS, he had not met the FTCA's presentment requirement, 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a), which is a jurisdictional prerequisite to bringing suit under the FTCA. Dkt. 15. On September 21, 2020, Judge Moses issued an order reminding Pifia of his duty to keep the Court apprised of his current address, because several previous mailings to him had been returned as undeliverable. Judge Moses also directed the Clerk of Court to update the docket with Pifia's latest mailing address, which she had learned as a result of a courtesy call the Court's staff had made to Pifia. Dkt. 20; Report at 2.
On October 6, 2020, Judge Moses directed Pifia to file a notice of change of address confirming his address by October 15, 2020, and extended his time to respond to the partial motion to dismiss. Dkt. 23. On October 30, 2020, Pina filed a notice of a change of address; at that time, his address was on Marcus Garvey Boulevard, Brooklyn, New York. Dkt. 24.
On November 12, 2020, the Clerk of Court received returned mail that had been sent to the Marcus Garvey Boulevard address. On April 20, 2021, Judge Moses issued the April R&R, recommending that the Government's partial motion to dismiss be granted because Pina had failed to present any claims beyond personal injury and property damage to the USPS, as required under the FTCA. Dkt. 29. On April 28, 2021, Pina entered another notice of a change in address, this time to one on Vreeland Street in Staten Island, New York, Dkt. 30.
On May 12, 2021, the Court adopted Judge Moses's April R&R and partially dismissed Pina's claims. Dkt. 31 ("May Op."). Pina had not objected to the April R&R. However, on May 18, 2021, Pina filed a motion to oppose. Dkt. 32. He argued, in part, that he had not received a copy of the April R&R. See Id. Accordingly, on May 20, 2021, the Court granted Pina an additional two weeks, starting that day, to submit any objections to the April R&R, given
that Pifia had notified the Court of his change of address only after the April R&R had issued and been mailed to his Marcus Garvey Boulevard address. Dkt. 33 ("May 20 Order").
On May 26, 2021, Pifia wrote a letter seeking sanctions against the Government and stating that the Government had "forever lost its right to appeal this FTCA claim for legal damages of $146 Million dollars when it willfully failed to turnover to Plaintiff a copy of' the April R&R. Dkt. 34. On May 28, 2021, the Court issued an order addressing such claims and reminding Pina that he had until June 3, 2021 to object to the April R&R. Dkt. 35. Finally, on June 14, 2021, having not received any further correspondence or objections from Pifia, the Court reaffirmed its adoption of the April R&R. Dkt. 36.
On June 21, 2021, Pifia filed the instant motion. He makes two claims. First, he says that he "still hasn't yet. .. ever received any copies of the April R&R. Mot. "Because of this Court's and [the Government's] collective failures to issue (or share) copies of this legal document," Pifia argues, he "has been unfairly prejudiced." Id. Second, Pifia argues, in response to the Court's finding that he had failed to present his business-related FTCA claim, "this Court also fails to understand or acknowledge" that Pina's lawyer had committed legal malpractice and is being investigated by the New York State Attorney Grievance Committee. Id.
On December 1, 2021, Judge Moses issued the Report, recommending that the Court deny Pina's motion. Dkt. 41 ("Report"). On December 8, 2021, Pina filed objections. Dkt. 43 ("Objections"). On December 21, 2021, the Government responded to Pifia's objections. Dkt. 44 ("Opp.").
B. The Report and Recommendation
The Report recommends denying Pina's motion for reconsideration, which it construed as brought on grounds including mistake and excusable neglect, See.Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); Report at 5. As Judge Moses explained, although it is possible that the Clerk of the Court mailed him
the May 20 Order, which gave Pina two additional weeks to respond to the April R&R, but neglected to send a copy of the April R&R itself, "[o]nthe record of this action . .. that would not justify further relief." Id. at 6, That is because Pina had made clear that he had received the May 20 Order. He thus knew he had until June 3, 2021, to object to the April R&R through his filings. Had he not yet received a copy of the Report, he had multiple options to get one. Id. at 6-7. In light of his "inaction" in the face of multiple orders giving him an opportunity to respond by June 3, 2021, Judge Moses accordingly found Pina not entitled to reconsideration for excusable neglect or mistake.
Judge Moses next explained that Pina is not entitled to reconsideration on account of his previous lawyer's alleged legal malpractice. That, she noted, was "the precise argument he made in opposition to the government's partial motion to dismiss." Id. at 8. It had been "expressly considered .. . carefully analyzed ... and squarely rejected" by both Judge Moses and this Court. Because Pina cannot relitigate issues already decided, and because he points to no error in that decision, his motion for reconsideration fails.
Finally, Judge Moses found Pina not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6)'s provisions for "extraordinary circumstances" or "an extreme hardship." No. such circumstances are present, she found, and Pifia's $450, 000 claim against the USPS for personal injury and property damage remains alive. Id. at 8-9.
II. Discussion
A. Applicable Legal Standards
1. Reports and Recommendations
In reviewing a Report and Recommendation, a district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). When specific objections are made, "[t]he district judge must
determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); see United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997). To accept those portions of the report to which no timely objection has been made, "a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record." King v. Greiner, No. 02 Civ. 5810 (DLC), 2009 WL 2001439, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2009) (citing Wilds v. U.P.S., 262 F.Supp.2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)); see also Edwards v. Fischer, 414 F.Supp.2d 342, 346-47 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).
To the extent that the objecting party makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates the original arguments, the court will review the Report and Recommendation strictly for clear error. See Dickerson v. Conway, No. 08 Civ. 8024 (PAE), 2013 WT 3199094, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2013); Kozlowski v. Hulihan, Nos. 09 Civ. 7583, 10 Civ. 0812 (RJH), 2012 WL 383667, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2012). This is so even in the case of a pro se plaintiff. See Dickerson, 2013 WL 3199094, at *1; Molefe v. KIM Royal Dutch Airlines, 602...
To continue reading
Request your trial