Domitz v. The City of Long Beach

Filing 36

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 32 Motion for Reconsideration. For the Reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration is denied. (Ordered by Judge Leonard D. Wexler on 12/14/2017.) (Fagan, Linda)

FILED
IN CLERK'S OFFICE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT E.D.N.Y.

*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-----------------------------------------------------------)(
HOWARD A. DOMITZ,

DEC 14 2017

*

LONG ISLAND OFFICE
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

cv 16-1720

Plaintiff,

(Wexler, J.)

-againstTHE CITY OF LONG BEACH,
Defendant.

-----------------------------------------------------------)(
APPEARANCES:
LAW OFFICES OF WAYNE J. SCHAEFER, LLC
BY: Wayne J. Schaefer, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
199 East Main Street, Suite 4
Smithtown, NY 11787
ROBERT M. AGOTISTI, CORPORATION COUNSEL, CITY OF LONG BEACH
BY: Richard A. Berrios, Esq., Assistant Corporation Counsel
Attorneys for Defendant
1 West Chester Street
Long Beach, NY 11561

WE)(LER, District Judge:
By Memorandum and Order dated June 16,2017, the Court granted Defendant's motion
to dismiss, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and dismissed Plaintiff's
discrimination claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et
seg., with prejudice. By that same Order, the Court declined to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law discrimination claims, dismissing such clai~s without

-1-

prejudice. Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of the Court's June 16, 2017 Memorandum and
Order. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration is denied.

DISCUSSION 1
I.

Legal Standard
Motions for reconsideration in this district are governed by Local Civil Rule 6.3 and are

committed to the sound discretion of the district court. See Hunt v. Enzo Biochem, Inc., No. 06
Civ. 170, 2007 WL 1346652, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2007). "Reconsideration is an
'extraordinary remedyto be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of
scarce judicial resources."' Id. at *1 (quoting In re Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc. Sec. Litig., 113 F.
Supp. 2d 613, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)). For this reason, Local Civil Rule 6.3 is "narrowly
construed and strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been
considered fully by the court." Dietrich v. Bauer, 76 F. Supp. 2d 312, 317 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).
"To prevail on a motion for [reconsideration], the movant 'must demonstrate that the
Court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before it on the
underlying motion.'" Church of Scientology Int'l v. Time Warner, Inc., No. 92 Civ. 3024, 1997
WL 538912, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 1997) (quoting Gill v. Gilder, No. 95 Civ. 7933, 1997
WL 419983, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 28, 1997)). "A motion for reconsideration is not a substitute
for appeal ... Nor is it 'a second bite at the apple for a party dissatisfied with a court's ruling.'"
Hunt, 2007 WL 1346652, at *1 (quoting Pannonia Farms. Inc. v. USA Cable, No. 03 Civ. 7841,

1

Familiarity with the facts of the underlying action is presumed and, as such, they will
not be repeated here
-2-

2004 WL 1794504, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2004)). Accordingly, a party may not merely offer
the same arguments that were previously submitted to the court when seeking reconsideration.
See Giordano v. Thom'son, No. 03-CV-5672, 2006 WL 1882917, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. June 26,
2006).
Moreover, a party is not permitted to "advance new facts, issues or arguments not
previously presented to the Court" on a motion for reconsideration. Caribbean Trading & Fid.
Corp. v. Nigerian Nat'l Petroleum Corp., 948 F.2d 111, 115 (2d Cir. 1991) (quotation omitted)~
"Indeed, a party requesting [reconsideration] 'is not supposed to treat the court's initial decision
as the opening of a dialogue in which that party may then use Rule [6.3] to advance new facts
and theories in response to the court's rulings."' Church of Scientology, 1997 WL 538912, at *2
(quoting Woodard v. Hardenfelder, 845 F. Supp. 960, 966 (E.D.N.Y. 1994) ("The restrictive

.

application of Local Rule 6.3 helps to prevent the practice of a losing party examining a decision
and then plugging the gaps of a lost motion with additional matters:") (quotation omitted).

II.

Plaintiffs Agglication
Here, Plaintiff asserts that the Court overlooked controlling Second Circuit case law

when rendering its decision on Defendant's motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs assertion, however, is
incorrect.
In support of his argument, Plaintiff submits the exact same case law he put before the
Court in his opposition to the underlying motion to dismiss, which the Court did consider in ·
rendering its June 16, 2017 decision. Plaintiff is attempting to do exactly what motions for
reconsideration prohibit - reargue the position already considered and rejected by the Court.

-3-

While Plaintiff may be unhappy that the Court did not accept its interpretation and application of
the case law he submitted, his assertion that the Court overlooked the case law is incorrect.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration is denied.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration is denied.

SO ORDERED:

Dated: Central Islip, New York
December J±, 2017

. /'\

/\

( .LEoNAiill o. wix~ER'""~l
United States District Judge

-4-

/)