Corpus: 543,223 opinions · 3,177 judges · newest 2026-06-23 · expanding Coverage ↗
Opinion

govinfo:USCOURTS-ctd-3_24-cv-01760-2

U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut · 2026-03-23

· GavelSight synced 2026-09-06 03:34:53

-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

Passage view · GavelSight