United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING AND ORDER
R. UNDERHILL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Smith Grohs removed her family court case to this court after
the Connecticut Superior Court awarded sole custody of her
children to her former husband, William Grohs. See
Pet. Removal, Doc. No. 1. After examining the petition for
removal, I concluded that the case was improperly removed and
ordered that it be remanded to Connecticut Superior Court.
Ms. Grohs has now moved for reconsideration of that ruling. I
grant the motion for reconsideration, but deny the requested
relief, and adhere to my decision to remand the case to state
Standard of Review
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides that the district
court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a
final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable
diligence, could have been discovered in time to move for a
new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged;
it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or
vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable;
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
standard for granting motions for reconsideration is strict.
Motions for reconsideration “will generally be denied
unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or
data that the court overlooked-matters, in other words, that
might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached
by the court.” Shrader v. CSX Transp., 70 F.3d
255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). Motions for reconsideration will not
be granted where the party merely seeks to relitigate an
issue that has already been decided. Id. The three
major grounds for granting a motion for reconsideration in
the Second Circuit are: (1) an intervening change of
controlling law, (2) the availability of new evidence, or (3)
the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest
injustice. Virgin Atl. Airways v. Nat'l Mediation
Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992) (citing 18
Charles A. Wright et al., Federal Practice &
Procedure § 4478).
Smith Grohs and William J. Grohs were divorced on July 26,
2011. See Judgment of Dissolution, Grohs v.
Grohs, No. UWY-FA10-4022991-S, Doc. No. 169.00 (Conn.
Super. Ct. July 26, 2011). In connection with their divorce,
they entered into a Parenting Agreement that was
“attached to and made a part of” the
Dissolution of Marriage Settlement Agreement. See Ex.
L to Pet. Removal, Doc. No. 1-11, at 3. Ms. Grohs alleges
that Mr. Grohs subsequently violated the terms of the
Parenting Agreement and conspired with judges of the
Connecticut Superior Court to obtain sole custody of the
children. See Pet. Removal, Doc. No. 1, at 5-6.
September 25, 2017, after the Superior Court awarded sole
custody of the children to Mr. Grohs, Ms. Grohs removed the
family court action to this court under 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1441(a) & 1443. She asserted a slew of bases
for federal jurisdiction, including 18 U.S.C. §§
228 (the Child Support and Recovery Act) and 1346 (the Child
Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act); 28 U.S.C. §§
1331 (Federal question jurisdiction), 1361 (Action to compel
an officer of the United States to perform his duty), 1391
(Venue), 1491 (the Tucker Act), 1651 (the All Writs Act),
1738A (Full faith and credit given to child custody
determinations), & 2283 (the Anti-Injunction Act); 29
U.S.C. § 701 (the Rehabilitation Act); 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1983 (the Civil Rights Act of 1866), 12133,
& 12188 (the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”)); Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5.1,
15, & 65; the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh,
Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Fourteenth, and Nineteenth Amendments