Gindi v. Bennett et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 13 Motion for Reconsideration: For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum and Order, Gindi's motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 13) is denied. Gindi's request for a conference and her request for p ermission to file a motion for summary judgment is denied without prejudice to renew the applications at a later stage of the action. This action is recommitted to the assigned Magistrate Judge for all pre-trial proceedings, including addressing any issues with service of the remaining defendants, as well as plaintiffs request for default judgment (Doc. No. 21). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Memorandum and Order to plaintiff Lisa Gindi, pro se, and note the mailing on the docket. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. Ordered by Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf on 1/4/2017. (Mauskopf, Roslynn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------X
LISA GINDI,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
15-CV-6475 (RRM) (RER)

- against NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION,
Defendant.
-----------------------------------------------------------X
ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF, United States District Judge.

Plaintiff pro se Lisa Gindi commenced this action on November 4, 2015, alleging
violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”),
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (“ADEA”), and the
Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (“ADA”). Currently pending is
Gindi’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s June 20, 2016 Order dismissing her second
amended complaint. (Mot. Recons. (Doc. No. 13).) In addition, Gindi has filed a request for a
pre-motion conference, along with a proposed order to show cause for summary judgment.
(Doc. Nos. 15–18.) For the reasons discussed below, Gindi’s motion for reconsideration is
denied. Gindi’s request for a pre-motion conference, along with her request for permission to
file a motion for summary judgment, is denied without prejudice to renew the applications at a
later stage of the action.
BACKGROUND
On November 4, 2015, Gindi filed her initial complaint. (Compl. (Doc. No. 1).) By
Order dated February 1, 2016, the Court granted Gindi’s request to proceed in forma pauperis,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and granted her leave to file an amended complaint. (2/1/16 Order

(Doc. No. 4).) On February 12, 2016, Gindi submitted an amended complaint which was
reviewed for sufficiency under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). (Am. Compl. (Doc. No. 5).) By
Order dated April 13, 2016, the Court granted Gindi leave to submit a second amended
complaint and provided specific guidance regarding the filing of the complaint. (4/13/16 Order
(Doc. No. 6).) On April 29, 2016, Gindi filed her second amended complaint. (Second Am.
Compl. (Doc. No. 7).)
By Order dated June 20, 2016, the Court dismissed Gindi’s second amended complaint in
part, leaving only her employment discrimination claims against the New York City Department
of Education (“DOE”). (6/20/16 Order (Doc. No. 12).) On July 13, 2016, Gindi filed a motion
for reconsideration of the Court’s June 20, 2016 Order. (Mot. Recons.) On July 14, 2016, the
Clerk of Court issued a summons to the DOE.1 (Summons (Doc. No. 14).) Thereafter, on
October 26, 2016, Gindi filed a request for a pre-motion conference, (Req. Conference (Doc. No.
15)), and on November 14, 2016, Gindi filed a proposed order to show cause for summary
judgment, (Doc. Nos. 16–18.)2
DISCUSSION
The decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration “is within the sound discretion
of the district court . . . and is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests
of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources.”3 Mangino v. Inc. Vill. of Patchogue,

1

Due to clerical error, the summons was issued for the United States Department of Education rather than the New
York City Department of Education. On November 23, 2016, the Clerk of Court issued an amended summons for
the New York City Department of Education. (Am. Summons (Doc. No. 19).)

2

Because the factual history of this case was discussed at length in the Court’s Orders dated February 1, 2016, April
13, 2016, and June 17, 2016, the Court recounts the history of this case only as is necessary to dispose of the
pending motion for reconsideration. (See Doc. Nos. 4, 6, 12.)

3

Motions for reconsideration may be brought pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule” or “Rules”)
59(e) and 60(b) and E.D.N.Y. Local Civil Rule (“Local Rule”) 6.3 for the United States District Courts for the
Southern and Eastern Districts of New York. Shearard v. Geithner, No. 09-CV-0063 (JS), 2010 WL 2243414, at *1

2

814 F. Supp. 2d 242, 247 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); see
also Stevens v. Miller, 676 F.3d 62, 67 (2d Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted);
Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir. 2008). Under Rule 59(e) and Local
Rule 6.3, “[t]he major grounds justifying reconsideration are an intervening change in controlling
law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest
injustice.” Webb v. City of New York, No. 08-CV-5145 (CBA), 2011 WL 5825690, at *1
(E.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Shrader v.
CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). Similarly, Rule 60(b) provides relief from
an order for, inter alia, mistakes, inadvertence, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence,
and fraud. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Reconsideration under Rule 60(b) “allows extraordinary
judicial relief” and it should be “invoked only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances.”
Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58 (2d Cir. 1986). Furthermore, “[a] moving party may not merely
reiterate or repackage an argument previously rejected by the court.” In re N.Y. Cmty. Bancorp,
Inc. Sec. Litig., 244 F.R.D. 156, 160 (E.D.N.Y. 2007). In other words, a motion for
reconsideration “is not an opportunity for a second bite at the apple,” id., and courts should deny
a motion for reconsideration “where the moving party seeks solely to relitigate an issue already
decided,” Shrader, 70 F.3d at 257.
Having reviewed Gindi’s submission, the Court finds that it fails to satisfy the demanding
standard for reconsideration under Rule 59(e), Rule 60(b), and Local Rule 6.3. Although Gindi’s
motion is far from a model of clarity, it appears that she is challenging the Court’s decision
dismissing Gindi’s claims against the individual defendants, which included a state court judge
and individuals employed by the DOE. Gindi’s motion fails to allege any controlling legal
(E.D.N.Y. May 30, 2010). Gindi fails to assert under which Rule she seeks reconsideration. In any case, as
discussed below, Gindi’s motion for reconsideration fails to allege facts or legal arguments that meet the standards
for relief under either Rule.

3

arguments or facts that this Court overlooked or that would otherwise lead the Court to alter its
decision. See Schrader, 70 F.3d at 257. Instead, Gindi’s motion merely reiterates facts and
arguments that this Court previously rejected. As Gindi’s motion for reconsideration does not
contain any meaningful or substantive reason to reopen the case against the defendants dismissed
from this action, the motion is denied.
CONCLUSION
Gindi’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 13) is denied. Gindi’s request for a
conference and her request for permission to file a motion for summary judgment is denied
without prejudice to renew the applications at a later stage of the action.4
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order
would not be taken in good faith, and therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of
an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962).
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Memorandum and Order
to plaintiff Lisa Gindi, pro se, and note the mailing on the docket.
This action is recommitted to the assigned Magistrate Judge for all pre-trial proceedings,
including addressing any issues with service of the remaining defendants, as well as plaintiff’s
request for default judgment (Doc. No. 21).

SO ORDERED.
Roslynn R. Mauskopf
________________________________
ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF
United States District Judge

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
January 4, 2016

4

Under Rule 56, “a party may file a motion for summary judgment at any time until 30 days after the close of all
discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Because the parties have yet to begin discovery in this case, Gindi’s request for
permission to file a motion for summary judgment is premature.

4