United States of America v. Gorokhovsky et al

Filing 247

ORDER signed by Judge Brett H Ludwig on 4/8/22 that Defendant Gorokhovsky's motion for reconsideration 242 is DENIED. Defendant Gorokhovsky's motion for leave to file sur-reply 246 is DENIED. (cc:all counsel and mailed to pro se party)(jad)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 18-cv-0590-bhl

VLADIMIR M GOROKHOVSKY, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
______________________________________________________________________________
On April 5, 2022, this Court entered an Order denying Defendant Vladimir Gorokhovsky’s
motion to enlarge time to vacate the real property located at 10919 N. Hedgewood Lane, Mequon,
Wisconsin (the Mequon Property). (ECF No. 240.) Within hours, Gorokhovsky filed a motion
for reconsideration. (ECF No. 241.) He amended that motion the next day. (ECF No. 242.)
Plaintiff United States of America filed its response the day after, on April 7, 2022. (ECF No.
243.) Hours later, Gorokhovsky filed what he termed a “Second Motion to Amend,” but what is
essentially a reply to the United States. (ECF No. 244.)
While the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly contemplate a “motion to
reconsider,” “courts in the Seventh Circuit generally apply the standards of Rule 59(e) or Rule
60(b) to such motions.” Poirier v. Foster, No. 18-cv-1062-pp, 2020 WL 3104300, at *2 (E.D.
Wis. June 11, 2020) (citing Washington Frontier League Baseball, LLC v. Zimmerman, No. 14cv-1862, TWP-DML, 2016 WL 4798988, at *1 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 14, 2016)). Gorokhovsky’s motion
is not one seeking to reconsider or amend a judgment à la Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The Court will
therefore evaluate it according to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), which sets forth the six grounds on which
a party can seek relief from an order. Of these grounds, only the sixth, a catch-all, possibly applies
to the pending motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) (allowing the court to relieve a party from an
order for “any other reason that justifies relief”). Relief under this provision is reserved for
“extraordinary circumstances.” Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 777 (2017).

Plenty about this case has been extraordinary, but not the circumstances surrounding this
motion. For the most part, Gorokhovsky merely rehashes the same rejected arguments made in
his original motion. (Compare ECF No. 228 with ECF No. 242.) To the pile of his previously
unpersuasive excuses, he adds that he relies on a refrigerator to store the insulin he uses to treat
his diabetes. (ECF No. 242 at 4.) While the Court recognizes that a diabetic might find transience
more difficult than most, there are numerous accommodations—a hotel, an Airbnb, a friend’s or
relative’s house, even a mobile cooler—that provide access to refrigeration. As the Court alluded
to in its prior Order, Gorokhovsky is not entitled to remain on the Mequon Property simply because
leaving is inconvenient. If that were the case, his stay would last the rest of his life; few things are
more inconvenient than a move.

But, as the Court has explained on previous occasions,

Gorokhovsky’s dilatory tactics have already extended this litigation far beyond what is reasonable
and must now come to an end. Because he cannot show any reasons justifying relief from the prior
Order, his motion will be denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Gorokhovsky’s motion for reconsideration
(ECF No. 242) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Gorokhovsky’s motion for leave to file surreply (ECF No. 246) is DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin on April 8, 2022.

s/ Brett H. Ludwig
BRETT H. LUDWIG
United States District Judge