Antech Diagnostics, Inc. v. Veterinary Oncology and Hematology Center, LLC et al
ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the attached Order, Antech Diagnostics, Inc.'s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 131 ) is hereby DENIED. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Alvin W. Thompson on 5/16/17. (Rafferty, M.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
ANTECH DIAGNOSTICS, INC.
VETERINARY ONCOLOGY and HEMATOLOGY :
CENTER, LLC, et al.,
Civil No. 16cv481(AWT)
ORDER RE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
For the reasons set forth below, Antech Diagnostics, Inc.’s
Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 131) is hereby DENIED.
“The standard for granting [a motion for reconsideration] is
strict . . . .”
Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255,
257 (2d Cir. 1995) (citations omitted).
“A motion for
reconsideration should be granted only when the defendant
identifies ‘an intervening change of controlling law, the
availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear
error or prevent manifest injustice.’”
Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil
of Tartikov, Inc. v. YLL Irrevocable Trust, 729 F.3d 99, 104 (2d
Cir. 2013)(quoting Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat’l Mediation
Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992)).
“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) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
also not appropriate to use a motion to reconsider solely to relitigate an issue already decided.”
Id. at 91-92.
“[a] motion for reconsideration may not be used to advance new
facts, issues or arguments not previously presented before the
Davidson v. Scully, 172 F. Supp. 2d 458, 461 (S.D.N.Y.
2001). See also Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Stroh
Cos., Inc., 265 F.3d 97, 115-16 (2d Cir. 2001) (noting that
arguments raised for the first time on a motion for
reconsideration may be rejected as untimely).
As a threshold matter, Antech Diagnostics, Inc.’s (“Antech”)
motion for reconsideration should be denied because it has not
identified controlling decisions or data the court overlooked in
Not only were the three opinions on which Antech
relies in its motion for reconsideration not presented to the
court in connection with the defendants’ motion for partial
judgment on the pleadings, but they are not controlling decisions.
Moreover, these three decisions do not support Antech’s
Antech does not even contend that the contract
provisions in VCA Clinipath Labs, Inc. v. Progressive Pet Animal
Hosp., P.C., 2:11-cv-12237-AC-MKM, 2013 WL 6152409 (E.D. Mich.
Nov. 22, 2013), and Antech Diagnostics, Inc. v. Downers Grove
Animal Hosp. & Bird Clinic, P.C., No. 12C2736, 2013 WL 773034
(N.D. Ill. Feb. 28, 2013) are comparable to Section 5 of the
contract at issue here.
Also, the opinion in VCA Cenvet, Inc. v.
Winchester Veterinary Grp., Inc., No. 11-12123-DPW, (D. Mass. Aug.
31, 2015) appears to support the analysis in the court’s ruling on
the defendants’ motion for partial judgment on the pleadings.
page 23 of that opinion, which addresses liquidated damages, the
The language of Section 5 provides Antech the option
whether or not to seek damages separate from the
termination fee schedule of Section 5. In particular, I
note the language that “Antech may Terminate this
Agreement” if Winchester is in material breach and the
language that the fee schedule applies “[i]f Antech
elects to Terminate this Agreement.”
Id. slip op. at 23 (underlined emphasis added).
Finally, the court notes that during the telephonic status
conference, it did not mention the fact that the last sentence in
Section 6 of the Agreement is an integration clause, which
provides, “This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and
agreement of the parties hereto relating to the subject matter
The “subject matter hereof” includes what happens “[i]f
Antech elects to Terminate this Agreement” in accordance with
As the court noted during the telephonic status
conference, the “subject matter hereof” does not include what
happens if Antech chooses to pursue a remedy other than electing
to terminate the Agreement pursuant to Section 5.
It is so ordered.
Signed this 16th day of May, 2017, 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?