Shah v. Helen Hayes Hospital

D) Bhupendra K Shah MAR 10 202 540 Highview Avenue Pearl River, NY 10965 <* U.S.D.C. oie ds W.P. March 7, 2025'" 22x, Cheon ace 5 ye ae Hon. Vito Genna, Chief Clerk a Saye Southern District of New York ee White Plains courthouse Quarropas Street cy at White Plains, N.Y. 10601-4150 Re: Docket # 04 CV 07342 (CLB)(LMS) Notice of motion under 60(b)(5) of FR.C.P. Dear Ms Genna: Good morning!

Since Hon. Charles Brieant rests in heaven, I do not know the name of a judge to whom I should send this Notice of motion. Therefore, am enclosing the following papers to you for forwarding them to the appropriate judge: 1, Proof of Service , 2. Notice of Motion under Rule 60(b\(5) of F.R.C-P. 3, Memorandum of Law in support of the motion for relief from judgment invoking Rule 60(b)(5) of F.R. C.P. If you need any other information, please do not hesitate to Email me at [email protected]. , Respectfully Submitted Pontipor~n ete, Pro Se Bhupendra K Shah See Cc. Mr Mark Rosenzweig Esq N.Y. S. Office of the Attorney General South Broadway White Plains, NY 10601 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Dhu wa.) Sha, Write the full name of each plaintiff or petitioner.

CaseeNo. ©Y CV_67342- -against- NOTICE OF MOTION Peta Hayes Nesp Eal_ and NY. STMIE Depantrowmt eo) thoa\ He Write the full name of each defendant or respondent, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that ®Lainmti +e PR wwpemadna ik. Shore plaintiff or defendant name of party who is making the motion requests that the Court: udagmrenk emkanecd or Moy 23, 2006 AIAN OAC) Rule GoCbdCs>) 4 FRCP.

Briefly describe what you want the court to do, You should also include the Federal Rule(s) of Civ Procedure or the statute under which you are making the motion, if you know.

In support of this motion, I submit the following documents (check ail that apply): War memorandum of law my own declaration, affirmation, or affidavit 0) the following additional documents: Moy Cw 71, 2 2-0 __ Paani onadro. Ir S\noda Dated Signature Name Prison Identification # (if incarcerated) SH 0 □□ Navi Qua DA. Poor RIND WY LoG4s~ Address City State Zip Code Te Number (if available) E-mail Address [if available) SDNY Rev: 5/24/2016 AFFIRMATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ROCKLAND SS: I, BHUPENDRA K SHAH, declare under penalty of perjury that I on March 7, 2025, I served one copy of “Memorandum of Law in support of the motion for relief from judgement invoking Rule 60(b)(5) of F_R.C. P.” to Attorney Mr. Mark Rosenzweig (or any other attorney) at his last known address(es) set forth below: Mr. MarkRosenzweig (or any other attorney) N.Y. Office of the Attorney General South Broadway White Plains, N-Y. 10601.

(Signature) prrbeoydig K- March 7 , 2025 (Print Name) Bhupendra K Shah Plaintiff's Rule 60(b) Motion is denied. The basis for the motion is a purported change in the law from when Judge Brieant granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants in 2006. (Dkt. No. 32.). The basis for the Motion, which Defendants properly note should be construed as being governed by Rule 60(b)(6), is the Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, in which the Court held that, “{a]ithough an employee must show some harm from a forced transfer to prevail in a Title VII suit, she need not show that the injury satisfies a significance test.” 601 U.S. 346, 350 (2024).

As Defendants note, “[ijntervening developments in the law by themselves rarely constitute the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under Rule 60(b)(6).” Agostini v. Fetton, 521 U.S. 203, 239 (1997). And so it is here. Summary judgment was granted in this case, not because Pailintiff failed to establish a harm sufficient to support his discrimination claim as it related to Plaintiff's 2002 transfer, but because he failed to establish either that he applied for a promotion or that the transfer was motivated by discrimination. (Dkt. 45-1 at 33.). Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to shoe-horn a 1997 transfer, that claim would be untimely for the reasons given in the Report and Recommendation adopted by Judge Brieant. (Dkt. 45-1 at 2-22.).

Therefore, there is no reason to doubt the viability of 2006 judgment in the wake of the Muldrow decision. □ ee p 6/18/25