Silverman et al v. Miranda et al

Filing 384

OPINION AND ORDER re: 366 MOTION for Reconsideration re: 365 Clerk's Judgment Entered October 4, 2016 filed by Teamster Local 210 Affiliated Health and Insurance Fund, 370 CROSS MOTION for Sanctions filed by Herbert Pobiner, Janet Sachs, Leon Silverman, James Crowley, Paul Berkman, Louis Flacks, Union Mutual Medical Fund: For the reasons set forth above, Defendants' motion for reconsideration is DENIED, and Plaintiffs' cross-motion for sanctions is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions, Docs. 366 & 370. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 4/7/2017) (jwh) Modified on 4/10/2017 (jwh).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LEON SILVERMAN, JAMES CROWLEY,
JANET SACHS, HERBERT POBINER, LOUIS
FLACKS, and PAUL BERKMAN, as Trustees of
the Union Mutual Medical Fund, and UNION
MUTUAL MEDICAL FUND,
Plaintiffs,
-against-

OPINION AND ORDER
06 Civ. 13222 (ER)

GEORGE MIRANDA, ROBERT BELLACH,
ANTHONY CERBONE, and MARTIN SHEER,
as Trustees of the Teamsters Local 210 Affiliated
Health and Insurance Fund, and TEAMSTERS
LOCAL 210 AFFILIATED HEALTH AND
INSURANCE FUND,
Defendants.

Ramos, D.J.:
On September 30, 2016, the Court entered an Opinion and Order granting in part and
denying in part Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, denying Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment, and awarding Plaintiffs judgment in the amount of $2,460,777.33 plus preand post-judgment interest. Doc. 364 at 17 & n.7. In accordance with the Court’s Order, on
October 4, 2016, the Clerk of the Court entered Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs in the amount of
$2,460,777.33 plus pre-judgment interest at the rate of 4.82% from April 1, 2006, for a total sum
of $3,706,989.13, with post-judgment interest to be calculated in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 1961(a). Doc. 365. On October 18, 2016, Defendants moved for reconsideration of the
October 4, 2016 Judgment, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.3 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e). Doc. 366. In response, Plaintiffs cross-moved for sanctions against Defendants’ counsel.
Doc. 370.

I. Legal Standard
Local Civil Rule 6.3 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) provide for
reconsideration or reargument of a court’s order on a motion only where the court has overlooked
controlling decisions or factual matters that were “put before it on the underlying motion . . . and
which, had they been considered, might have reasonably altered the result before the court.”
Mikol v. Barnhart, 554 F. Supp. 2d 498, 500 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (quoting Greenwald v. Orb
Commc’ns & Mktg., Inc., No. 00 Civ. 1939 (LTS) (HBP), 2003 WL 660844, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb.
27, 2003)). “Reconsideration of a court’s previous order is an ‘extraordinary remedy to be
employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources.’”
Parrish v. Sollecito, 253 F. Supp. 2d 713, 715 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (quoting In re Health Mgmt. Sys.
Inc. Sec. Litig., 113 F. Supp. 2d 613, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)). These rules are “narrowly construed
and strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been considered fully
by the Court.” Mikol, 554 F. Supp. 2d at 500 (quoting Dellefave v. Access Temps., Inc., No. 99
Civ. 6098 (RWS), 2001 WL 286771, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2001)). “Where the movant fails
to show that any controlling authority or facts have actually been overlooked, and merely offers
substantially the same arguments he offered on the original motion or attempts to advance new
facts, the motion for reconsideration must be denied.” Id. (citing Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc.,
70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995)).
A motion for reconsideration is not a substitute for appeal, Boart Longyear Ltd. v.
Alliance Indus., Inc., 869 F. Supp. 2d 407, 418 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), nor is it a vehicle for a party
dissatisfied with the Court’s ruling to voice its disagreement with the decision, R.F.M.A.S., Inc. v.
Mimi So, 640 F. Supp. 2d 506, 512–13 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). “Courts have repeatedly been forced to
warn litigants that such motions should not be made reflexively to reargue those issues already
considered when a party does not like the way the original motion was resolved.” Boart, 869 F.
2

Supp. 2d at 418 (quoting Makas v. Orlando, No. 06 Civ. 14305 (DAB), 2008 WL 2139131, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2008)) (internal quotation marks omitted); see, e.g., Anwar v. Fairfield
Greenwich Ltd., 884 F. Supp. 2d 92, 96 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (“The provision for reargument is not
designed to allow wasteful repetition of arguments already briefed, considered and decided.”);
see also Assoc. Press v. U.S. Dep’t of Defense, 395 F. Supp. 2d 17, 19 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (motion
for reconsideration is not “an occasion for repeating old arguments previously rejected”).
II. Defendants’ Arguments
Defendants argue that the Court overlooked: material facts in ruling that the Local 210
Fund accepted an obligation to make remittances to the UMMF; that the AWF’s liabilities for the
Duane Reade proceeds were not transferable to the Local 210 Fund; that Plaintiffs had a remedy
against the contracting employers of the pre-amendment CBAs; and the significance of the
Second Circuit’s statement that employers are not obligated to contribute to the UMMF. Doc.
367 at 4–9. Defendants’ arguments were extensively briefed in the parties’ summary judgment
papers and were not overlooked by the Court.
Defendants also argue that the Court’s formulation for pre-judgment interest must be
modified to avoid manifest injustice upon the Local 210 Fund. Doc. 367 at 1–4. Defendants
have never before raised concerns with the method of calculating pre-judgment interest, although
Plaintiffs put the question squarely at issue in their summary judgment papers. See Doc. 352 at
24–25 (urging the Court to “set April 1, 2006 as the ‘reasonable date from which to award prejudgment interest’”) (quoting Wechsler v. Hunt Health Sys., Ltd., 330 F. Supp. 2d 383, 435
(S.D.N.Y. 2004)). “A motion for reconsideration is ‘not intended as a vehicle for a party
dissatisfied with the Court’s ruling to advance new theories that the movant failed to advance in
connection with the underlying motion.’” WestLB AG v. BAC Fla. Bank, 912 F. Supp. 2d 86, 95
(S.D.N.Y. 2012) (quoting Parrish v. Sollecito, 253 F. Supp. 2d 713, 715 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)). In any
3