Anwar et al v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited et al

Filing 1104

DECISION AND ORDER: Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES the Morning Mist Derivative Plaintiffs' request for a pre motion conference (Dkt. No. 1102), deems the Morning Mist Derivative Plaintiffs' March 27, 2013 letter a motion for reconsideration and DENIES the Morning Mist Derivative Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. (Signed by Judge Victor Marrero on 4/3/2013) (js)

Download PDF
-~tJS!bc S~y DOC; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK , \l;,~r EI,ECTRO~lCALLY -poc#: ------X " ?PAlE OLEO;­ .:", , PASHA S. ANWAR, et al., Plaintiffs, DECISION AND ORDER - against FAIRFIELD GREENWICH LIMITED, et al., Defendants. - X VICTOR MARRERO, United States District Judge. By letter Derivative dated Plaintiffs March 27, sought a 2013, the pre-motion Morning Mist conference to address a motion for reconsideration of the Court's March 22, 2013 approval of the partial settlement in this matter. The Morning Mist Derivative Plaintiffs based this request on the recent decision in 1222646 (2013). Plaintiffs By objected letter to Plaintiffs' request, application to the ~omcast Corp. v. Behrend, 2013 WL dated the 29, Morning Mist that 2013, Comcast arguing Court's March decision. the Derivative The has no Settling Defendants concur with the Plaintiffs' position. Reconsideration of a previous order by the court is an "extraordinary interests of remedy to be employed sparingly finality and conservation of scarce in Supp. the judicial resources." F. 113 2d 613, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 1­ 2000) , FILTiD (ci tations and "The provision for reargument is quotation marks omitted) not designed to already briefed, allow wasteful considered and decided. reconsideration are 'an intervening justifying manifest law, controlling the availabili ty or the need to correct a Ltd. 956 F.2d 1245 / 18 A. Wrightl Procedure § 4478 Miller at of 790) (2d Cir. 1255 E. & Cooperl To new clear error or prevent injustice.'ff Mediatio~~Bd., C. schonberger v. /I "The major grounds evidence, arguments (S.D.N.Y. 1990). 742 F. Supp. 108, in of 119 Serchuk:, change repetition 1992) Federal these v. ends, a Nat'l (quoting Practice request & for reconsideration under Rule 6.3 of this Court's Local Civil Rules, which demonstrate governs motions controlling for law or reconsideration l factual matters must put before the court in its decision on the underlying matter that the movant believes the court overlooked reasonably be expected to alter the the court. 257 that might conclusion reached by '_~_~.T.!~n~p. 1 Inc. 70 F. 3d 255, 1 (2d Cir. 1995). Upon finds of See Shrader v and the that review of the parties' reconsideration of partial settlement is submissions, the March 221 not the 2013 warranted. Court approval In Comcast, the Supreme Court held that a class action was improperly certified court "entertain where the lower -2­ did not arguments against respondents' damages model the propriety of class certification, determination." be also would arguments Comcast, simply because those pertinent 2013 WL that bore on 12226464, merits the to at *5. The Comcast ruling does not address class action settlements or the specific issues relevant to the Court's approval of the partial settlement. Therefore, the Morning Mist Derivative Plaintiffs have failed to identify any controlling law or factual matters put to the Court on the underlying motion that the Court demonstrably did not consider. Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES the Morning Mist Derivative Plaintiffs' (Dkt. No. Plaintiffs' 1102), March reconsideration and request for a pre motion conference deems the Morning 27, 2013 letter a Morning Mist DENIES the Mist Derivative motion Derivative Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York 3 April 2013 Victor Marrero U.S.D.J. -3 for

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?