Associated Financial Corporation et al v. Kleckner et al

Filing 52

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION re: Denying 42 MOTION to Seal Document Note to Attorney to Re-File Document - Deficient Docket Entry Error, 41 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 35 Memorandum & Opinion, 36 Clerk's Judgment, Note to Attorney to Re-Fil e Document - Deficient Docket Entry Error,. MOTION to Seal Document Note to Attorney to Re-File Document - Deficient Docket Entry Error, 41 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 35 Memorandum & Opinion, 36 Clerk's Judgment, Note to Attorney to R e-File Document - Deficient Docket Entry Error,. MOTION to Seal Document Note to Attorney to Re-File Document - Deficient Docket Entry Error, 41 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 35 Memorandum & Opinion, 36 Clerk's Judgment, Note to Attorney to Re-File Document - Deficient Docket Entry Error,. filed by Associated Financial Corporation, Community Housing Enterprises, Inc., Denying 40 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 35 Memorandum & Opinion, 36 Clerk's Judgment, Note to Attorney to Re-File Document - Deficient Docket Entry Error, MOTION for Reconsideration re; 35 Memorandum & Opinion, 36 Clerk's Judgment, Note to Attorney to Re-File Document - Deficient Docket Entry Error,. filed by Associated Financial Corporation, Community Housing Enterprises, Inc. The Clerk is directed to close Dockets No. 40 and 42. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 7/7/11) (djc)

USDC SONY

United States District Court
Southern District of New York

DOCUMENT
ELi:.CTRC.JNICALL Y FILED
DOC#
'

'1/1 1 /7/

DATE FILED:

ASSOCIATED FINANCIAL CORPORATION and
COMMUNITY HOUSING ENTERPRISES, INC.,
09 Civ. 3895 (JGK)
Plaintiffs,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER

- against ­
STANLEY M. KLECKNER, ET AL.,
Defendants.

JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:
The plaintiffs' move for reconsideration of this Court's
Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 2, 2010 granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss and directing the Clerk to enter
judgment dismissing the action and closing the case.

The

plaintiffs have failed to show that there were any issues of
fact or law that the Court overlooked. While the plaintiffs
disagree with the Court's decision, that is not a basis for
reconsideration.

See, e.g., R.F.M.A.S., Inc. v. Mimi So, 640 F.

Supp. 2d 506, 512-13 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).

Indeed, having reviewed

the motion for reconsideration, there is nothing in the motion
that suggests that the Court's decision was incorrect in any
way.
The motion for reconsideration is therefore denied.
The plaintiffs have also filed a motion to file the
Settlement Agreement and Release under seal.

Whatever is in the

record is already in the record, and the record was concluded in
this Court prior to the filing of this motion.

There is no

specific showing as to why any part of the record that was not
previously under seal should now be placed under seal.
The motion to seal is therefore denied.
The Clerk is directed to close Dockets No. 40 and 42.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

New York, New York
July 7 ' 2011
Koeltl
District Judge