Zsa Zsa Jewels, Inc. v. BMW of North America, LLC et al

Filing 59

ORDER denying 58 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by Judge I. Leo Glasser on 1/24/2017. (Weitzer, Iliza)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------x
ZSA ZSA JEWELS, INC.,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

-against15-CV-6519 (ILG)(RLM)
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC et al.,
Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------x
GLASSER, Senior United States District Judge:

The plaintiff has moved this Court pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 6.3 to
reconsider its Memorandum and Order dated December 27, 2016, DE #57, which dismissed its
objection to a Memorandum and Order issued by Magistrate Judge Mann, DE #53. Familiarity
with those Memoranda and Orders is assumed.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), authority to hear and determine all pretrial
matters in a case pending before the Court was delegated to Magistrate Judge Mann. In the
exercise of that authority she denied the plaintiff’s motion to amend the pleadings and add new
parties for the findings made and reasons stated in her Memorandum and Order referenced
above. That statute provides that a judge may reconsider the Magistrate Judge’s Order where it
has been shown that the Order “is clearly erroneous and contrary to law.” In addition, Local
Civil Rule 6.3 addressing “Motions for Reconsideration” requires that their claims for relief
“[set] forth concisely the matter or controlling decisions the Court has overlooked.”

In dismissing the plaintiff’s objection, the Court was mindful of the sensitive implications
inherent in most, if not all impositions of sanctions as its citation to National Hockey League v.
Metropolitan Hockey Club, 427 U.S. 639 (1976) would suggest. But a de novo review of the
Magistrate Judge’s Order and of the submissions surrounding it docketed as numbered, 46, 48,
51, 52, 54-56, drive the Court to conclude that there are no matters or controlling decisions that
have been overlooked and the Order of the Magistrate Judge is not clearly erroneous and contrary
to law. The motion to reconsider is, therefore, denied.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
January 24, 2017

______/s/______________________
I. Leo Glasser
Senior U.S. District Judge