Smith et al v. Wilson et al

Filing 66

ORDER denying 65 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 7/13/2017. (Williams, C)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
DWIGHT SMITH, LAURA WNUK,
JOANNA MROZEK,
Plaintiffs
v.
DAVID WILSON, RUSHICK “IKE” CHIN,
DERRICK CHIN,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO. 3:15-CV-01215 (VAB)

RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Dwight Smith, Laura Wnuk and Joanna Mrozek (“Plaintiffs”), pro se, initially brought
this lawsuit against David Wilson, Rushick Chin and Derrick Chin (“Defendants”) seeking
damages arising out of an allegedly fraudulent transaction for property in Jamaica. On May 8,
2017, Plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint, submitting a proposed Amended
Complaint that was 477 pages long. The Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion, noting that the
proposed revisions ran afoul of the requirement in Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
that pleadings contain a “short and plain statement of the claim….” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
Following the Court’s order, Plaintiffs submitted another motion for leave to amend, providing a
proposed amended complaint that was 231 pages long. The Court again denied Plaintiffs’
motion without prejudice, allowing Plaintiffs another opportunity to submit a proposed amended
complaint that was not unnecessarily long and repetitive.
Plaintiffs have now moved for reconsideration of the Court’s most recent order denying
leave to amend their complaint. For the reasons outlined below, Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.

I.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
“The standard for granting [a motion for reconsideration] is strict, and reconsideration

will generally 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);
see also Virgin Atlantic Airways, Ltd. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992)
(“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”
(internal citations omitted)). “[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted where the
moving party seeks solely to relitigate an issue already decided.” Shrader, 70 F.3d at 257.
II.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs argue that their 231-page proposed amended complaint “include[d] the minimal

amount of facts and information required and therefore … the length of the Amended Complaint
[did not] rise[] to such level indicated for dismissal.” Pls. Mem. in Supp. at 2, ECF No. 65-1.
They do not argue that the Court overlooked any controlling decisions, nor do they present any
new evidence in support of their motion for leave to amend; rather, they disagree with the
Court’s conclusion that the length and redundancy of the proposed amended complaints were
sufficiently exceptional to warrant dismissal under Rule 8.
In their motion, Plaintiffs seek to “relitigate an issue already decided.” Shrader, 70 F.3d
at 257. Under Shrader, this is not an appropriate basis for reconsideration. Id. Accordingly, the
Court will not revisit its prior rulings on this matter. Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is
denied.

2

III.

CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs’ [65] Motion for Reconsideration is denied. As indicated in the Court’s

previous rulings, Plaintiffs may submit a proposed amended complaint that succinctly and briefly
summarizes the nature of Plaintiffs’ claims in accordance with Rule 8.
SO ORDERED in Bridgeport, Connecticut this 13th day of July, 2017.
/s/ Victor A. Bolden
VICTOR A. BOLDEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3