Commissioner of Labor v. Chubb Group of Insurance Companies
ORDER: The plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 51 ) is hereby DENIED. The Clerk shall close this case. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Alvin W. Thompson on 3/6/2013. (Sykes, J.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
COMMISSIONER OF LABOR,
CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE
CASE NO 3:11CV00997(AWT)
ORDER RE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
The plaintiff’s Motion For Reconsideration (Doc. No. 51) is
The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration is
Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir.
1995) (internal citations omitted).
“A motion for
reconsideration may not be used to plug gaps in an original
argument or to argue in the alternative once a decision has been
SPGGC, Inc. v. Blumenthal, 408 F. Supp. 2d 87, 91 (D.
Conn. 2006) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
“It is also not appropriate to use a motion to reconsider solely
to re-litigate an issue already decided.”
“A motion for
reconsideration may not be used to advance new facts, issues or
arguments not previously presented before the Court, nor may it
be used as a vehicle for relitigating issues already decided by
Davidson v. Scully, 172 F. Supp. 2d 458, 461
See also Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of
Pittsburgh v. Stroh Cos., Inc., 265 F.3d 97, 115 (2d Cir. 2001)
(noting that arguments raised for the first time on a motion for
reconsideration may be rejected as untimely).
In the first part of the motion for reconsideration, after
failing to identify any specific pertinent provision of the Plan
as ambiguous, the plaintiff relies on a Fair Labor Standards Act
regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 778.211, to argue that the Plan is
The plaintiff also argued in his opposition to the
motion to dismiss that the Plan was ambiguous, but he did not
raise the FLSA regulation.
Thus, the plaintiff is seeking to
plug a gap in his original argument, in violation of the
requirements for a motion for reconsideration. In addition,
under the FLSA regulation a bonus is discretionary in character
only if the employer retains discretion “both as to the fact of
payment and as to the amount...”
29 C.F.R. § 778.211(b).
under the FLSA regulation a bonus is nondiscretionary if the
employer lacks discretion as to either the fact of payment or
the amount of payment.
However, based on the analysis of the
Connecticut Supreme Court in Ass’n Res., Inc. v. Wall, 298 Conn.
145 (2010), Ziotas v. Reardon Law Firm, P.C., 296 Conn. 579
(2010) and Weems v. Citigroup, Inc., 289 Conn. 769 (2008), to
establish a bonus is “wages” under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-71a(3),
a plaintiff must show that the bonus was entirely
nondiscretionary, i.e., both as to whether it would be awarded
and, if so, the amount of the award.
Thus, the meaning
“discretionary” under the FLSA regulation is materially
different from the meaning under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-71a(3),
and the FLSA regulation and the cases applying it are
The plaintiff also raises an entirely new argument that the
plaintiff waived its discretion under the Plan and/or created an
implied bonus wage agreement.
The court rejects this argument
In the second part of the motion for reconsideration, the
plaintiff argues that the Wage and Hour Act must be liberally
construed to extend its remedial powers.
The plaintiff made
precisely this argument in his opposition to the motion to
The court considered the argument and found it
unpersuasive because even when a statute is liberally construed,
the express terms of the statute still must be taken into
The text of § 31-72 permits “any legal action
necessary” only where the action is to recover “wages,” as
defined in § 31-71a(3), and the bonus at issue does not fall
within the statutory definition of “wages.”
Finally, in his surreply the plaintiff cites a controlling
case that he argues was overlooked by the court.
once again ignores the standard for a motion for
reconsideration, raising a case and an argument based thereon
that were not previously mentioned.
The Clerk shall close this case.
It is so ordered.
Dated the 6th day of March 2013, at Hartford, Connecticut.
Alvin W. Thompson
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?