Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

BLOM Bank SAL v. Michal Honickman, et al.

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, No. 22-1039 · judgment February 29, 2024


Decided · June 5, 2025
Pre-decision estimate: 22% cert probability (95% interval 15%–32%)

Before the decision, about 5.4× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for counsel with five or more prior petitions here, a Second Circuit decision below, and a circuit split argued in the petition.

Question presented

For more than 70 years, this Court has "required a movant seeking relief under Rule 60 (b)(6)" of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "to show 'extraordinary circumstances' justifying the reopening of a final judgment." Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535 (2005) (quoting Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 199 (1950)). This Court has also stressed that a movant must be "faultless" to obtain relief. Pioneer Inv. Servs. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 393 (1993). "This very strict interpretation of Rule 60(b) is essential if the finality of judgments is to be preserved." Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 535 (cleaned up). In this case, Respondents declined multiple invitations and opportunities to amend their complaint. The District Court then dismissed their complaint with prejudice, and the Second Circuit affirmed. Only then did Respondents move to vacate the judgment so they could file an amended complaint. The District Court denied the motion under Rule 60(b)(6)'s well-settled standard. But the Second Circuit reversed, based on an unprecedented "balanc[ing]" test that requires district courts to consider Rule 15(a)'s "liberal pleading principles" when addressing a Rule 60 (b)(6) motion to reopen a judgment for the purpose of filing an amended complaint. The question presented is: Whether Rule 60(b)(6)'s stringent standard applies to a post-judgment request to vacate for the purpose of filing an amended complaint.

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Michael Hugh McGinley
Dechert LLP

For respondent
Michael Jacob Radine
Osen LLC

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences

Argument & decision

Argued March 3, 2025 — Michael H. McGinley · Michael J. Radine. Audio and transcript

Decided June 5, 2025. Opinion by Thomas.

Proceedings

  1. Jul 07 2025
    Judgment Issued.
  2. Jun 05 2025
    Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, JJ., joined, and in which Jackson, J., joined as to all but Part III. Jackson, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
  3. Mar 03 2025
    Argued. For petitioner: Michael H. McGinley, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Michael J. Radine, Hackensack, N. J.
  4. Feb 07 2025
    Reply of petitioner BLOM Bank SAL filed. (Distributed)
  5. Jan 15 2025
    Record received electronically from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and available with the Clerk (one DVD).
  6. Jan 13 2025
    CIRCULATED
  7. Jan 08 2025
    Brief of respondents Michal Honickman, et al. filed.
  8. Dec 09 2024
    Brief of petitioner BLOM Bank SAL filed.
  9. Dec 09 2024
    Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)
  10. Dec 03 2024
    Record received electronically from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and available with the Clerk.
  11. Nov 27 2024
    Record requested from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
  12. Nov 22 2024
    SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, March 3, 2025.
  13. Oct 18 2024
    Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including December 9, 2024. The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including January 8, 2025.
  14. Oct 15 2024
    Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.
  15. Oct 04 2024
    Petition GRANTED.
  16. Sep 11 2024
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/30/2024.
  17. Sep 11 2024
    Reply of petitioner BLOM Bank SAL filed. (Distributed)
  18. Aug 28 2024
    Brief of respondents Michal Honickman, et al. in opposition filed.
  19. Jul 29 2024
    Response Requested. (Due August 28, 2024)
  20. Jul 17 2024
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/30/2024.
  21. May 29 2024
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 3, 2024)