Anne Bryant v. AB Droits Audiovisuels et al
Filing
196
OPINION AND ORDER: Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of my June 2, 2017 Opinion and Order is denied in all respects. So Ordered. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 7/11/2017) Copies Sent By Chambers. (js)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------x
ANNE BRYANT,
Plaintiff,
-against-
07 Civ. 6395 (PAC) (HBP)
OPINION
AND ORDER
AB DROIT AUDIOVISUELS,
et al.,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------x
PITMAN, United States Magistrate Judge:
By letter dated June 22, 2017 (Docket Item ("r;>.I.")
194), plaintiff seeks reconsideration of my Opinion and Order
dated June 2, 2017 (D.I. 188) which denied plaintiff's motion for
sanctions against Gloria C. Phares, Esq.
For the reasons set
forth below, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied.
Motions for reconsideration are appropriate only under
limited circumstances.
As explained by the late Honorable Peter
K. Leisure, United States District Judge, in Davidson v. Scully,
172 F. Supp. 2d 458, 461-62 (S.D.N.Y. 2001):
A motion for reconsideration may not be used to
advance new facts, issues or arguments not previously
presented to the Court, nor may it be used as a vehicle
for relitigating issues already decided by the Court.
See Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d
Cir. 1995). A party seeking reconsideration "is not
supposed to treat the court's initial decision as the
opening of a dialogue in which that party may then use
such a motion to advance new theories or adduce new
evidence in response to the court's rulings." Polsby
v. St. Martin's Press, Inc., No. 97 Civ. 690, 2000 WL
98057, at *l (S.D.N.Y. Jan 18, 2000) (Mukasey, J.).
Thus, a motion for reconsideration "is not a substitute
for appeal and 'may be granted only where the Court has
overlooked matters or controlling decisions which might
have materially influenced the earlier decision.'"
Morales v. Quintiles Transnational Corp., 25 F. Supp.
2d 369, 372 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (citations omitted).
See also Mahmud v. Kaufmann, 496 F. Supp. 2d 266, 269-70
(S.D.N.Y. 2007)
(Conner, D.J.).
"A movant for reconsideration
bears the heavy burden of demonstrating that there has been an
intervening change of controlling law, that new evidence has
become available, or that there is a need to correct a clear
error or prevent manifest injustice."
Quinn v. Altria Grp.,
Inc., 07 Civ. 8783 (LTS) (RLE), 2008 WL 3518462 at *1 (S.D.N.Y.
Aug. 1, 2008)
(Swain, D.J.), citing Virgin Airways v. Nat'l
Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992).
A party is entitled to reargument under Local Rule 6.3
where she "can point to controlling decisions or data that the
court overlooked
matters, in other words, that might reason-
ably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court."
In re BDC 56 LLC, 330 F.3d 111, 123 (2d Cir. 2003)
(citation
omitted), abrogated on other grounds, In re Zarnel, 619 F.3d 156,
167 (2d Cir. 2010); accord Allied Mar., Inc. v. Rice Corp., 361
F. Supp. 2d 148, 149 & n.1 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)
2
(Scheindlin, D.J.).
Thus, a motion for reconsideration generally may not
advance "new facts,
issues or arguments not previously presented
to the Court."
Torres v. Carry, 672 F. Supp. 2d 346, 348
(S.D.N.Y. 2009)
(Marrero, D.J.), quoting Davidson v. Scully,
supra, 172 F. Supp. 2d at 461.
"These limitations serve to
ensure finality and to prevent losing parties from using motions
for reconsideration as a vehicle by which they may then plug the
gaps of a lost motion with additional matters."
In re City of
New York, as Owner & Operator of M/V Andrew J. Barberi,
CV-03-6049 (ERK) (WP), 2008 WL 1734236 at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 10,
2008), citing Zoll v. Jordache Enters. Inc., 01 Civ. 1339 (CSH),
2003 WL 1964054 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2003)
(Haight, D.J.);
accord Cohn v. Metro. Life Ins., Co., 07 Civ. 0928 (HB), 2007 WL
2710393 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2007)
(Baer, D.J.).
In addition to the foregoing substantive limitations, a
motion for reconsideration is subject to the procedural
limitation that it must be made within fourteen days of the
issuance of the order or decision in issue.
Local Civil Rul 6.3.
Plaintiff's motion suffers from a number of defects.
First, it is untimely.
on June 2, 2017.
The Opinion and Order in issue was issued
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was
signed on June 22, 2017, delivered to Federal Express that day
and delivered to the Court on June 26.
3
Plaintiff's failure to
file the motion in a timely manner is sufficient by itself to
result in the motion's denial. 1
The motion is also substantively defective.
Plaintiff
does not identify any controlling facts or legal precedents that
were called to my attention in connection with the original
motion that I overlooked.
Rather plaintiff seeks to offer new
facts, new arguments and even attaches several new exhibits to
her motion.
As the authorities cited above teach, such practice
is clearly prohibited in connection with a motion for reconsideration.
Although I understand that plaintiff disagrees with my
June 2 Opinion and Order, a party's disagreement with a Court's
decision is simply not a basis for reconsideration.
The first page of plaintiff's motion and the handwritten
Federal Express that is ordinarily completed by the sender are
both dated June 17, 2017. However, the last page of plainitiff's
motion and the mailing label prepared by Federal Express are both
dated June 22, 2017.
I conclude that June 22 is the date that
plaintiff's letter was delivered by her to Federal Express.
1
4
Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's
motion for reconsideration of my June 2, 2017 Opinion and Order
is denied in all respects.
Dated:
New York, New York
July 11, 2017
SO ORDERED
2Lv..
/~
HENRY PITZUnited States Magistrate Judge
Copy mailed to:
Ms. Anne Bryant
2601 Jefferson Circle
Sarasota, Florida 34239
Copies transmitted to:
All Counsel
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?