Hybrid Athletics, LLC v. Hylete, LLC

Filing 232

ORDER denying 211 Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Court's Ruling and Order on Hylete, Inc.'s Motion for Leave to Amend Regarding Proposed Counterclaim 6. See attached order. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 10/8/2019. (Conde, Djenab)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
HYBRID ATHLETICS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 3:17-cv-1767 (VAB)

HYLETE, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

RULING AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION OF THE
COURT’S RULING AND ORDER ON HYLETE, INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
AMEND REGARDING PROPOSED COUNTERCLAIM 6
On September 6, 2019, Hylete, Inc. (“Hylete”) moved for partial reconsideration of this
Court’s August 30, 2019 Ruling and Order on a motion to dismiss or transfer and a motion to
amend the answer and counterclaims. Motion for Partial Reconsideration, ECF No. 211 (Sept. 6,
2019) (“Def.’s Mot.”); see also Ruling and Order on Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Amend,
ECF No. 209 (Aug. 30, 2019) (“Ruling”). Under D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(c), Hylete asks the Court
to reconsider its decision denying Hylete’s motion for leave to amend its Answer and
Counterclaims, and argues again for the Court to add proposed Counterclaim 6. Id.
On September 13, 2019, Hybrid Athletics, LLC (“Hybrid”) objected. Opposition to
Hylete’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration, ECF No. 212 (Sept. 13, 2019) (“Pl.’s Opp.”).
This Court’s Ruling denied Hylete leave to add proposed Counterclaim 6 and found that
Hylete did not demonstrate good cause for the amendment. Ruling at 23-24. Additionally, this
Court also declined to “grant Hylete leave to add this new counterclaim into the case at this
advanced stage of the litigation, as it would prejudice Hybrid by substantially increasing the cost
and time required to litigate this matter.” Id. at 24.

“Motions for reconsideration shall not be routinely filed and shall satisfy the strict
standard applicable to such motions. Such motions will generally be denied unless the movant
can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked in the initial decision or
order.” D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(c). This standard is strict, and requires the movant to point to
matters “that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.”
Schrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 71 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). “A motion for reconsideration
‘is not a vehicle for relitigating old issues, presenting the case under new theories, securing a
rehearing on the merits, or otherwise taking a ‘second bite at the apple’[.]” Mandell v. Doloff,
No. 3:17-cv-01282-MPS, 2018 WL 3677895, at *1 (D. Conn. Aug. 2, 2018) (quoting Analytical
Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012), as amended (July 13,
2012)).
Hylete first argues that the Court overlooked facts Hylete identified underlying proposed
Counterclaim 6 that were uncovered during recent discovery. See Def.’s Mot. at 2. In support of
this argument, Hylete references statements it made in prior filings. See id. at 2-3.
Hylete next argues that the Court overlooked critical facts regarding the discovery
required with respect to proposed Counterclaim 6. See id. at 3-5. In support of this argument,
Hylete also references statements made in prior filings. See id.
In opposition, Hybrid emphasizes that “Hylete does not point to a single fact or
controlling decision the Court overlooked. Instead, Hylete’s brief parrots prior arguments in the
hope of a different result.” Pl’s Opp. at 1. Importantly, Hybrid notes, “Hylete cites no new fact,
evidence, change of law, error, or injustice that it suffers.” Id. at 2 (footnote omitted).
The Court agrees.

2

Hylete’s arguments for partial reconsideration of the Court’s Ruling are based on
arguments from prior filings. Because Hylete fails to point out controlling decisions or data that
the Court overlooked, but instead rehashes the same arguments already addressed in the Court’s
Ruling, see Ruling at 23-24, the Court declines to reconsider denying leave to add proposed
Counterclaim 6.
For the reasons explained above, the motion for partial reconsideration is DENIED.
SO ORDERED at Bridgeport, Connecticut, this 8th day of October, 2019.
/s/ Victor A. Bolden
Victor A. Bolden
United States District Judge

3