Mauro Motors Inc. v. Old Cargo LLC
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision. The 12 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Maura E. Lynch (United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York 2019)
- Doresca v. Onewest Bank, FSB (United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York 2024)
- Doresca v. Onewest Bank, FSB (United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York 2024)
- Marco Destin, Inc. v. Levy (District Court, S.D. New York 2023)
- Fetman v. Musso (District Court, E.D. New York 2021)
- Juliao v. Charles Rutenberg Realty, Inc. (District Court, E.D. New York 2020)
- Rigueiro v. The Republic of Argentina (District Court, S.D. New York 2020)
- Colella v. The Republic of Argentina (District Court, S.D. New York 2020)
- Forgione v. The Republic of Argentina (District Court, S.D. New York 2020)
- In re Coughlin (United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York 2017)
- Dobyns v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2016)
- Krietzburg v. Mucci (In re Mucci) (United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Mexico 2013)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
AMENDED SUMMARY ORDER
Appellants are automobile dealers whose dealership contracts with Chrysler were terminated by Chrysler as part of its bankruptcy and restructuring. They moved the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York to reconsider its decision to allow Chrysler to exclude these contracts from the assets it sold to Fiat and to then reject these contracts after the sale under 11 U.S.C. § 365. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues presented for review.
A motion to reconsider a judgment must be rejected if “there was an opportunity to have the ground now relied upon to set aside the judgment fully litigated in the original action.” Leber-Krebs, Inc. v. Capitol Records, 779 F.2d 895, 899 (2d Cir. 1985) (internal quotation marks omitted). Appellants present no evidence or ai’guments in this collateral attack that could not have been presented in a timely appeal from the bankruptcy court’s original decision. Having failed to appeal from that decision, Appellants may not now attack it collaterally absent newly discovered evidence of fraud on the court. No such evidence has been presented, so Appellants’ motion to reconsider was properly denied.
As to the merits of Appellants’ claims, they are utterly frivolous. We reject these claims on the merits for substantially the same reasons set forth by the district court below.
The bankruptcy court and the district court correctly concluded that there was no fraud on the court. As a result, we hereby AFFIRM the district court’s decision affirming the bankruptcy court’s denial of Appellants’ motion to reconsider.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.