Mehmeti v. Jofaz Transportation, Inc.

Filing 81

ORDER denying 78 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by Judge I. Leo Glasser on 7/20/2015. (Russell, Alexandra)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------x
SUBI MEHMETI,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
12 Civ. 5880 (ILG) (JO)
- against JOFAZ TRANSPORTATION, INC.,
Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------x
GLASSER, Senior United States District Judge:
On May 22, 2015, this Court issued an order, familiarity with which is assumed,
granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing Plaintiff’s claim
under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (“FMLA”). Dkt. No. 74. Plaintiff now
moves for reconsideration of that order, pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and Local Rule 6.3. For the following reasons, the motion for
reconsideration is DENIED.
Rule 60(b) permits a court to rescind or amend a final judgment or order in
limited circumstances. “The standard for granting such a motion 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). “A motion for reconsideration is not
simply a second opportunity for the movant to advance arguments already rejected.”
Koehl v. Warden, No. 00 Civ. 6499, 2007 WL 680767, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2007).
Plaintiff asserts that the Court erred in determining that he did not suffer from a
“serious health condition” and was “unable to perform the functions of [his job]” as
1

required to seek medical leave under the FMLA. He argues that the Court overlooked
facts regarding events which occurred after he was terminated by Defendant for, so he
claims, taking a two-and-a-half hour emergency leave of absence. These facts, however,
were not overlooked by the Court and are irrelevant. As the Court observed in its prior
order, there is no question that Plaintiff was able to perform the functions of his job at
the time he purportedly took emergency leave the morning of October 3, 2012,
regardless of what may have occurred thereafter. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration is DENIED.
Dated:

Brooklyn, New York
July 20, 2015

/s/
I. Leo Glasser
Senior United States District Judge

2