SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. DESAI et al
Filing
142
OPINION AND ORDER denying 137 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 2/29/16. (gh, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Civ. No. 11-5597 (WJM)
Plaintiff,
v.
OPINION & ORDER
SHREYANS DESAI AND SHREYSIDDH
CAPITAL, LLC,
Defendants.
Defendant Shreyans Desai (“Desai”), pro se, asks this Court to reconsider its
grant of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (the “Government”) motion for
summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, Desai’s motion for
reconsideration is DENIED.
Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) allows a party
to move a district court to reconsider its judgment. A motion for reconsideration
may be granted only if: (1) there has been an intervening change in the controlling
law; (2) new evidence has become available since the court granted the subject
motion; or (3) it is necessary to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent
manifest injustice. Max’s Seafood Café by Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d
669, 677 (3d Cir. 1995) (citing North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52
F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)). Manifest injustice pertains to situations where a
court overlooks some dispositive factual or legal matter that was presented to it. See
In re Rose, No. 06-1818, 2007 WL 2533894, at *3 (D.N.J. Aug. 30, 2007). A motion
for reconsideration is not an appeal, and a “party’s mere disagreement with a
decision of the district court should be raised in the ordinary appellate process and
is inappropriate on a motion for [reconsideration].” Morris v. Siemens Components,
Inc., 938 F. Supp. 277, 278 (D.N.J. 1996).
Desai fails to demonstrate why this Court should reconsider its prior ruling.
In his motion for reconsideration, Desai does not allege an intervening change in
controlling law and fails to show how this Court overlooked a clear error of law or
1
fact. Instead, the crux of Desai’s argument is that he was unable to complete
discovery. This, Desai argues, made both the Government’s motion for summary
judgment and the Court’s subsequent opinion and order pre-mature.1 However, the
Court tackled these arguments in its prior opinion, finding that (i) some of Desai’s
discovery requests were clearly prohibited by the FRCP, and (ii) that “[p]arties in
civil litigation primarily bear the burden of conducting their own discovery” and
Desai was provided this opportunity. (See Opinion, ECF No. 125, 5.) Consequently,
Desai presents no appropriate basis for why this Court should set aside its prior
opinion and order. Accordingly, the Court denies Desai’s motion.
Thus, for the above reasons and for good cause shown;
IT IS on this 29th day of February 2016, hereby,
ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
/s/ William J. Martini
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.
1
In his reply, Desai asks the Court to disregard the Government’s opposition due to its late filing. The
Government’s opposition papers were due fourteen days prior to the motion day—set for January 19, 2016—and the
papers were timely filed on January 5, 2016. See L. Civ. R. 7.1(d)(2).
2
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?