Elastic Wonder, Inc. v. IDIL Doguoglu-Posey

Filing 69

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 66 PROPOSED MOTION to Correct Judgment re: 59 Memorandum & Opinion,, .PROPOSED MOTION to Amend/Correct 59 Memorandum & Opinion,, .PROPOSED MOTION for Reconsideration re; 59 M emorandum & Opinion,, . filed by Idil Doguoglu-Posey. To the extent not specifically addressed above, any remaining arguments are either moot or without merit. For the reasons explained above, the third party plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied. The Clerk is directed to close docket no. 66. SO ORDERED. (See Order.) (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 3/23/2015) (ajs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
───────────────────────────────────
ELASTIC WONDER, INC.,
Plaintiff,

13 Cv. 5603 (JGK)

- against -

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER

IDIL DOGUOGLU POSEY,
Defendant.
____________________________________
IDIL DOGUOGLU POSEY,
Third Party Plaintiff,
- against –
SPANDEX HOUSE, INC., ET AL.,
Third Party Defendants.
───────────────────────────────────
JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:
The plaintiff, Elastic Wonder, Inc., brought this action
against Idil Doguoglu-Posey (“Posey”) alleging federal trademark
infringement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and
cybersquatting under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection
Act (“ACPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), along with related
declaratory and state law claims.

Posey, proceeding pro se,

brought counterclaims against Elastic Wonder and a Third Party
Complaint against Spandex House, Inc. and Sabudh Nath for
substantially the same claims that had been brought against her
by Elastic Wonder.

On January 22, 2015, this Court granted in

1

part and denied in part the third party defendants’ motion to
dismiss.

In particular, this Court held that Posey had not

alleged sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for breach
of contract.

On March 11, 2015, Posey moved for reconsideration

of that aspect of the Court’s ruling.
As an initial matter, Posey’s motion is untimely.

Pursuant

to Local Rule 6.3, motions for reconsideration of judicial
Orders must be made within fourteen days after the Court’s
determination of the original motion.

Posey made her motion

well over fourteen days after her breach of contract claim was
dismissed, and it is therefore untimely.
In any event, Posey’s motion is without merit.

“The

decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration rests
within the sound discretion of the district court.”

Vincent v.

Money Store, No. 03 Civ. 2876, 2011 WL 5977812, at *1 (S.D.N.Y.
Nov. 29, 2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
“Reconsideration of a previous order by the Court is an
extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly . . . .”

Anwar v.

Fairfield Greenwich Ltd., 800 F. Supp. 2d 571, 572 (S.D.N.Y.
2011) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

“The

major grounds justifying reconsideration are an intervening
change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or
the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest
injustice.”

Virgin Atlantic Airways, Ltd. v. Nat'l Mediation
2

Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992) (internal citation and
quotation marks omitted); see also Assured Guar. Mun. Corp. v.
RBS Sec. Inc., No. 13cv2019, 2014 WL 1855766, at *1 (S.D.N.Y.
May 8, 2014).
Posey has failed to show that there were any issues of fact
or controlling law that the Court overlooked.

Although Posey

alleges that she mistakenly withdrew the claim at argument, the
Court dismissed the claim on the merits in its decision, stating
that “[e]ven with a liberal reading of the allegations of a pro
se party, Posey fails to allege facts that indicate that any
agreement between her and Nath existed.”

Elastic Wonder, Inc.

v. Posey, No. 13cv5603, 2015 WL 273691, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22,
2015).

Posey has not identified any new facts that would alter

that holding.
Accordingly, Posey’s motion for reconsideration is denied.

3

Conclusion
To the extent not specifically addressed above, any
remaining arguments are either moot or without merit.

For the

reasons explained above, the third party plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration is denied.

The Clerk is directed to close

docket no. 66.

SO ORDERED.
Dated:

New York, New York
March 23, 2015

___________/s/______________
John G. Koeltl
United States District Judge

4