Corpus: 543,223 opinions ·
3,177 judges ·
newest 2026-06-23 · expanding
Coverage ↗
Opinion
govinfo:USCOURTS-ctd-3_24-cv-01760-2
-1-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
-------------------------------- x
Civil No. 3:24-cv-1760 (AWT)
LAGUERRE LENSENDRO,
Plaintiff,
:
:
:
v.
CAPITAL ONE BANK FINANCIAL
CORPORATION,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
-------------------------------- x
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT
Plaintiff Laguerre Lensendro moves, pursuant to Rule 60 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment
entered in this case on January 23, 2026. For the reasons set
forth below, the plaintiff’s motion under rule 60(b)(ECF No. 38)
is hereby DENIED.
The only possible section of Rule 60 pursuant to which the
plaintiff could be moving for relief is Rule 60(b)(1). “Rule
60(b)(1) provides, in pertinent part, that a court may relieve a
party from a final judgment for ‘mistake, inadvertence,
surprise, or excusable neglect.’” State St. Bank & Tr. Co. v.
Inversiones Errazuriz Limitada, 374 F.3d 158, 166 (2d Cir. 2004)
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)). “A motion for relief from
judgment is generally not favored and is properly granted only
upon a showing of exceptional circumstances.” United States v.
Case 3:24-cv-01760-AWT Document 40 Filed 03/23/26 Page 1 of 3
-2-
Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 247 F.3d 370, 391 (2d Cir. 2001)
(citations omitted). “The burden of proof is on the party
seeking relief.” Id. (citation omitted).
The plaintiff’s sole claim was a claim for violation of 15
U.S.C. § 1691(a). The plaintiff alleged that “Capital One
precluded [him] from completing an application(s) because of
[his] income, and such was discriminatory” in violation of the
ECOA. Second Am. Compl. (ECF No. 32) ¶¶ 18, 28.
Capital One argued in its Motion to Dismiss that the Second
Amended Complaint should be dismissed because the plaintiff
failed to allege, among other things, that he is a member of a
protected class. The court agreed.
The court reminded the plaintiff that his claim was that he
was denied the opportunity to apply for a credit card “because
of [his] income[.]” Second Am. Compl. ¶ 18. See also Pl.’s Obj.
to Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. (ECF No. 34) (“Pl.’s Objection”) at
2. The court explained to the plaintiff that discrimination on
the basis of income is not prohibited by the ECOA. The court
cited to a specific provision of the Code of Federal Regulations
which states that “a creditor may consider the amount and
probable continuance of any income in evaluating an applicant’s
creditworthiness[,]” as well as his “credit history.” 12 C.F.R.
§§ 202.6(b)(5)-(6).
In the instant motion, the plaintiff asks the court to
Case 3:24-cv-01760-AWT Document 40 Filed 03/23/26 Page 2 of 3
-3-
“take a closer look at the statute and use deductive reasoning.”
ECF No. 38 at 1. He argues that “[j]ust because a statute or
constitutional provision names one category doesn’t always mean
it intends to exclude others unless there’s clear legislative
intent or structural context to support that exclusion[.]” Id.
at 2. Here, there is a regulation that clearly supports
excluding people who seek to bring a claim because a creditor
has considered an applicant’s income in evaluating the
applicant’s creditworthiness.
Thus, the plaintiff has failed to identify any mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, let alone
exceptional circumstances, as required for relief to be granted
under Rule 60(b)(1). Instead, the plaintiff simply attempts to
relitigate the merits of the defendant’s motion to dismiss. “A
party may not use Rule 60(b) to relitigate matters already
resolved by the district court.” Bruzzese v. Bondi, 2026 WL
669545, at *2 (2d Cir. Mar. 10, 2026).
Therefore, his motion should be denied.
It is so ordered.
Signed this 23rd day of March 2026, at Hartford,
Connecticut.
/s/AWT
Alvin W. Thompson
United States District Judge
Case 3:24-cv-01760-AWT Document 40 Filed 03/23/26 Page 3 of 3