U.S. Bank National Association, As Trustee, As Successor-In-Interest To Bank Of America, N.A., As Trsutee For The Registered Holders Of GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II, Commercial Mortgage Pass- v. Nesbitt Bellevue Property LLC et al

Filing 81

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 66 MOTION for Reconsideration. filed by Neswbitt Lynnwood Property LLC, Nesbitt Bellevue Property LLC, Nesbitt Portland Property LLC, Nesbitt El Paso Property L.P., Nesbitt Denver Property LLC, Nesbitt Blue Ash Prop erty LLC, Nesbitt Colorado Springs Property LLC, Nesbitt Livonia Property LLC. CONCLUSION: The Court has carefully considered all of the parties' arguments. To the extent not specifically addressed above, they are either moot or without merit. For the reasons stated above, the defendants' motion for reconsideration is denied. The Clerk is directed to close Docket No. 66. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 6/5/2012) (bw)

United States District Court
Southern District of New York
__________________________________
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

12 Civ. 423 (JGK)

Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER

- against NESBITT BELLEVUE PROPERTY LLC, ET
AL.,
Defendants.
__________________________________
JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:
The defendants have moved pursuant to Local Rule 6.3 for
reconsideration of the Court’s May 7, 2012 Opinion and Order
denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.

See U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n v. Nesbitt

Bellevue Property LLC, --- F. Supp. 2d ----, No. 12 Civ. 423,
2012 WL 1590518 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2012).

The Court assumes the

parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of
this case.
The standard to be applied to a motion for reconsideration
under Local Rule 6.3 is well-established.

It is the same as the

standard that was applied under former Local Civil Rule 3(j).
See United States v. Letscher, 83 F. Supp. 2d 367, 382 (S.D.N.Y.
1999) (collecting cases).

The moving party is required to

demonstrate that “the Court [ ] overlooked controlling decisions
or factual matters that were put before it on the underlying
1

motion, and which, had they been considered, might have
reasonably altered the result before the court.”

Vincent v.

Money Store, No. 03 Civ. 2876, 2011 WL 5977812, at *1 (S.D.N.Y.
Nov. 29, 2011) (citation omitted).
The decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration
“rests within the sound discretion of the district court.”

Id.

The rule “is narrowly construed and strictly applied so as to
avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been fully
considered by the court.”

Walsh v. McGee, 918 F. Supp. 107, 110

(S.D.N.Y. 1996) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted);
see also Eaton Vance Mut. Funds Fee Litig., 403 F. Supp. 2d 310,
313 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), aff’d, Bellikoff v. Eaton Vance Corp., 481
F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2007); Vincent, 2011 WL 5977812, at *1.
The defendants have not raised any controlling law or facts
that the Court overlooked which might reasonably altered the
Court’s previous decision.

The defendants argue that the Court

overlooked the independent financial interest that Torchlight
Investors, LLC (“Investors”), the parent company of the special
servicer Torchlight Loan Services, LLC (“Torchlight Services”),
has in this case.

However, the Court considered this argument,

and did not find it persuasive.
at *3 & n.5.

See U.S. Bank, 2012 WL 1590518,

The defendants point out that Investors is not

actually a beneficiary of the Trust, but rather it is the
manager of a fund that is a beneficiary.
2

This distinction would

not have altered the Court's decision. See id. at *4 ("Where
multiple parties all have a financial interest in a lawsuit, a
strategic choice of parties in order to maintain diversity is
not considered to be collusive so long as the party chosen to
bring the suit is in fact the master of the litigation."
(quoting Oscar Gruss & Son, Inc. v. Hollander, 337 F.3d 186, 195
(2d Cir. 2003)).
The defendants also argue that Torchlight Services is paid
fees for acting as an agent in servicing the loans at issue in
this case.

But the fact that an agent is paid a fee does not

make it a necessary party for the purposes of determining
diversity.

Were that not the case, it would be difficult to

reconcile the numerous cases where the citizenship of agents was
not considered for the purposes of diversity.

CONCLOSION
The Court has carefully considered all of the parties'
arguments. To the extent not specifically addressed above, they
are either moot or without merit.

For the reasons stated above,

the defendants' motion for reconsideration is denied.

The Clerk

is directed to close Docket No. 66.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

New York, New York
June 5, 2012

John G. Koeltl
Judge
3