Murillo v. A Better Way Wholesale Autos, Inc. et al

Filing 83

ORDER denying 72 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration; granting Defendants' 77 Motion to Stay subject to the parties' stipulation 78 ; denying 79 Motion for a Settlement Conference without prejudice pursuant to the attached memorandum of decision. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment for the Plaintiff pursuant to 71 . The Clerk shall then close this matter. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 12/09/2019.(Diamond, Matthew)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

REBECCA M. MURILLO,
Plaintiff,
v.
A BETTER WAY WHOLESALE
AUTOS, INC and WESTLAKE
SERVICES, LLC,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No. 3:17-cv-1883 (VLB)

December 9, 2019

Pending before the Court are three motions. First, Plaintiff Rebecca Murillo’s
moves for reconsideration of the Court’s Order entering judgment for the Plaintiff.
[Dkt. 72]. Also, pending is Defendants’ motion to stay enforcement of the judgment
pending appeal [Dkt. 77] and a joint motion for a settlement conference [Dkt. 79].
The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and GRANTS Defendants’
motion to stay enforcement of the judgment, subject to the parties’ stipulation [Dkt.
78]. The Court DENIES without prejudice the joint motion for referral to a U.S.
Magistrate Judge for a settlement Conference.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [Dkt. 72]
Pursuant to D. Conn. Local Rule 7(c), “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.”
The standard for filing a motion for reconsideration in this circuit is well
established and set forth in the Local Rules of this district. The standard for a
1

motion for reconsideration is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied
and should only be filed in unusual circumstances. Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc.,
70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). A motion for reconsideration will only be granted,
and should only be sought in good faith after a diligent inquiry, on one of the
following three grounds: (1) an intervening change in the law; (2) the availability of
new evidence; or (3) the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.
Virgin Atlantic Airways, Ltd. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir.
1992).
Under no circumstances should a motion to reconsider be granted where the
movant re-files a motion on which the court has already ruled, seeking solely to
relitigate an issue already decided. Shrader v. Can. Transportation, 70 F.3d 255, 257
(2d Cir. 1995). Courts must fairly and accurately resolve disputes in a timely manner
and cannot do so if it rules on individual motions multiple times.
This principle applies equally where a party advances an argument
previously made on the same grounds or advances a new argument which it could
have but failed to advance in the first instance. “Where the parties have battled for
the court’s decision they should not be required, nor without good reason, be
permitted to battle for it again.” Virgin Atlantic Airways, Ltd., 956 F.2d at 1255.
Under “the law of the case” doctrine, when a court has ruled on an issue, that
decision should be adhered to by that court in subsequent stages in the same case
unless cogent and compelling reasons militate otherwise.” Johnson v. Holder, 564
F.2d 95, 99 (2d. Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). A motion for reconsideration must be accompanied by “a memorandum setting forth concisely
2

the controlling decisions or data the movant believes the Court overlooked.” D.
Conn. L. Civil R. 7(c).
Plaintiff does not contest any aspect of the Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s
motion for entry of judgment. [Dkt. 72 at 1]. Plaintiff’s motion for judgment [Dkt. 40
at 2] stated:
Interest of 8% per annum is to be paid on any amounts not paid
within 30 days of the date of the award…
The plaintiff hereby moves that this matter be reopened. Plaintiff
further applies for an order confirming the award as a judgment
of this Court pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 9.

Plaintiff did not calculate and ask the Court to include interest in a sum certain in
the judgment. [Dkt. 40]; See also [Dkt. 64]. Consequently, the Court granted
Plaintiff’s motions for judgment twice, in neither case computing or stating the
specific amount of interest. [Dkt. 58]; [Dkt. 71]. Only after judgment entered the
second time did Plaintiff move to reopen the case and modify the judgment to
include interest in a sum certain.
Reconsideration to calculate the interest owed would not correct a clear
error or prevent manifest injustice. The arbitration award is clear and unambiguous
and anyone could calculate the interest owed. Plaintiff points to neither controlling
decisions or data that the Court overlooked in the initial order. On the contrary,
the Court entered the judgment Plaintiff requested. [Dkt. 71]. The motion for
reconsideration is DENIED.

3

The entry of judgment as set forth in the Court’s October 10, 2019 Order,
confirming the arbitration award remains in effect without modification. [Dkt. 71].
Defendant’s Motion to Stay Enforcement of Judgment on Appeal [Dkt. 77]
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(b) provides that an appellant is entitled to
a stay pending appeal by posting a supersedeas bond.1 “The purpose of the rule is
to ensure “that the prevailing party will recover in full, if the decision should be
affirmed, while protecting the other side against the risk that payment cannot be
recouped if the decision should be reversed.” In re Nassau Cty. Strip Search Cases,
783 F.3d 414, 417 (2d Cir. 2015) (citing Cleveland Hair Clinic, Inc. v. Puig, 104 F.3d
123, 125 (7th Cir.1997)).
Here, the parties reached an agreement regarding Defendants’ motion for
stay of enforcement, supported by a letter of credit. [Dkt. 77]. The Court finds that
the terms of the parties’ stipulation satisfies the standard for granting relief
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(b) The Court, therefore, grants the Defendants’
motion to stay enforcement of the judgment, pursuant to the terms of the
stipulation. [Dkt. 77].

1

The 2018 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure substantially
rewrote and reorganized subdivisions (a)-(d) of Rule 62. Now, “Rule 62(b) contains
in modified form the supersedeas bond provisions of former Rule 62(d),
authorizing a stay at any time after judgment is entered, not solely on appeal, and
explicitly authorizing the posting of security in a form other than a bond.” 11 Fed.
Prac. & Proc. Civ. CIV Rule 62 (3d ed.), footnotes to 2018 amendment.
4

Joint Motion for a Settlement Conference [Dkt. 79]
The Court denies without prejudice the parties’ request for a settlement
conference. [Dkt. 79]. Judgment has entered and Defendants filed a notice of
appeal. [Dkt. 62]. The parties cite no authority to support the supposition that this
court continues to have jurisdiction over the case now that Defendant has invoked
the jurisdiction of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals which apparently remains
extant.
The Second Circuit maintains a mediation program.2 The parties may refile
their motion upon a showing that Defendant withdrew its appeal or alternatively,
that this court retains jurisdiction for this purpose notwithstanding the appeal.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration of the Court’s prior Order entering judgment for the Plaintiff. The
Clerk shall enter judgment for the Plaintiff in accordance with the Court’s October
10, 2019 Order. [Dkt. 71].
To bring finality to this matter, the Court will not award attorney’s fees as
sanctions against Attorney Votre pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Thus, if Plaintiff
intends to move for a supplemental award of attorneys’ fees, Plaintiff must do so
within fourteen days of entry of the judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B),
as the Court’s order tolling this deadline is no longer applicable.
The Court GRANTS the Defendants’ motion to stay enforcement of the
judgment [Dkt. 77] pursuant to the terms of the parties’ stipulation [Dkt. 78].

2

Information available at http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/staff_attorneys/mediation.html.
5

The Court DENIES without prejudice the parties’ joint motion for referral to a
U.S. Magistrate Judge for a Settlement Conference [79].
The Clerk is directed to close this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
________/s/_____________
Hon. Vanessa L. Bryant
United States District Judge

Dated at Hartford, Connecticut: December 9, 2019

6