Instinet Incorporated et al v. Ariel (UK) Limited

Filing 41

Memorandum Opinion & Order; that Ariel now moves for reconsideration of the March 5 Order under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 6.3 of the Southern District of New York. Ariels motion is denied. The parties are directed to appear for a conference on September 8, 2010, at 11:30 a.m. to discuss the status of the case and Instinet's unresolved claims for relief. (Signed by Judge John F. Keenan on 7/6/10) (pl)

Instinet Incorporated et al v. Ariel (UK) Limited

Doc. 41

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------X INSTINET INCORPORATED, INSTINET : HOLDINGS INCORPORATED, INSTINET GROUP, : LLC, and INSTINET, LLC, : : Plaintiffs, : : -against: : : ARIEL (UK) LIMITED, : : Defendant. : ----------------------------------------X JOHN F. KEENAN, United States District Judge: On August 11, 2008, the Instinet

Memorandum Opinion & Order 08-cv-7141 (JFK)

entities

(collectively

"Plaintiff" or "Instinet") commenced the instant action seeking a declaratory judgment to the effect that Defendant Ariel (UK) Limited ("Ariel") has no intellectual property rights In in an

Instinet's

computerized

securities

trading

software.

Opinion and Order dated March 5, 2010 ("the March 5 Order"), the Court granted Instinet's motion for summary judgment on two of its four claims for relief. Ariel now moves for reconsideration

of the March 5 Order under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 6.3 of the Southern District of New York. Rule 60 contains two provisions under which a party may move for relief from a judgment or order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). Rule 60(a) provides that a court "may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is

Dockets.Justia.com

found in a judgment, order or other part of the record."

Rule

60(b) provides several reasons for which a court "may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Neither of these grounds

for relief is applicable under the present circumstances. A motion under Rule 60(a) is available only to correct a judgment "for the purpose of reflecting accurately a decision that the court actually made." Hodge ex rel. Skiff v. Hodge, 269 F.3d 155, 158 (2d Cir. 2001) (quoting Truskoski v. ESPN, Inc., 60 F.3d 74, 77 (2d Cir. 1995)). Ariel's motion does not direct

the Court to any clerical error, oversight, or omission in the March 5 Order but rather argues that the Court erred in its holding. 60(a). In addition, by its terms, Rule 60(b) only affords relief from final judgments. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) ("On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding . . . ."); see Transaero, Inc. v. La Fuerza Aerea Boliviana, 99 F.3d 538, 541 (2d Cir. 1996). A judgment is "final" for purposes of Rule Thus, the motion falls outside the purview of Rule

60(b) if it "is sufficiently `final' to be appealed" such that "it ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment." Alvarez v. Am. Airlines, Inc., No. 98 Civ. 1027, 2000 WL 145746, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8,

-2-

2000) (quotations omitted).

The March 5 Order granted summary

judgment on only two of Plaintiff's four claims for relief, and as such it cannot be considered a final judgment. Ariel's motion is also outside the scope of Rule 60(b). Ariel's request for reconsideration is procedurally proper, though, under Local Rule 6.3, which allows a party to move for reconsideration controlling overlooked." of a court which order counsel for in view of "matters court motion or has is Therefore,

decisions "The

believes

the a

standard

granting

such

strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked . . . that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court." Shrader v. CSX

Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995).

The goal of

Local Rule 6.3 is to "ensure the finality of decisions and to prevent the practice of a losing party examining a decision and then plugging the gaps of a lost motion with additional

matters."

Grand Crossing, L.P. v. U.S. Underwriters Ins. Co.,

No. 03 Civ. 5429, 2008 WL 4525400, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2008) (citations Brokerage 4962985, omitted); Customer at *1 see In re Refco No. 20, Capital 06 Civ. Markets, 64