Gonzalez Cordero v. Astrue

Filing 18

ORDER denying 16 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 6/4/13. (Nichols, J.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
LELLANY GONZALEZ CORDERO,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER
OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO. 3:12CV1253(DFM)

RULING ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Plaintiff Lellany Gonzalez Cordero filed this action on
August 27, 2012 seeking review of the final decision of the
defendant Commissioner of Social Security denying her
application for child's disability benefits and supplemental
security income.

Pending before the court is defendant's Motion

to Reconsider the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Ruling.
#16.)

(Doc.

In that Recommended Ruling (doc. #13) denying defendant's

motion to dismiss, the undersigned determined that venue is
proper in the District of Connecticut.
The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration "is
strict, and reconsideration generally will 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., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir.

1995) (citations omitted).

A "motion to reconsider should not

be granted where the moving party seeks solely to relitigate an
issue already decided."

Id.

"The major grounds justifying

reconsideration are 'an intervening change of controlling law,
the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear
error or prevent manifest injustice.'"

Virgin Atl. Airways,

Ltd. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992)
(citing 18 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H.
Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4478, at 790 (1981)).
Here, defendant reiterates the arguments raised in his
motion to dismiss (doc. #10) and reply brief (doc. #12), and the
additional case law cited by defendant predates the motion to
dismiss.

In short, he cites no new facts and no intervening

change of law.

Because a "motion to reconsider should not be

granted where the moving party seeks solely to relitigate an
issue already decided," Shrader, 70 F.3d at 257, reconsideration
is not warranted here.
Even if the court were to reconsider, it would reach the
same conclusion.

On a Rule 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss for

improper venue, plaintiff bears the burden of proving that venue
is proper in the forum.

Indymac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. v.

Reyad, 167 F. Supp. 2d 222, 237 (D. Conn. 2001).

The court

assumes the truth of all allegations in the complaint unless
contradicted by the defendant's affidavits, in which case "'[a]
2

court may examine facts outside the complaint to determine
whether venue is proper."

Id. (quoting 5A Charles Alan Wright &

Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d §
1352 (1990 & Supp. 1999)).

The court previously considered the

evidence cited by defendant in the pending motion, and its
analysis has not changed.

Drawing all reasonable inferences and

resolving all factual conflicts in plaintiff's favor, as it is
obliged to do, see id., the court concludes that plaintiff
resided in Connecticut at the commencement of this action for
purposes of jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Reconsider (doc.
#16) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 4th day of June,
2013.
_________/s/___________________
Donna F. Martinez
United States Magistrate Judge

3