Baril v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.

Filing 48

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER #105124. The plaintiff moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment. The motion is denied. While the plaintiff clearly disagrees with the Court's decision to dismiss his complaint, that is not a reason for the Court to reconsider this case. Because the plaintiff has failed to establish a basis for reconsideration or relief under Rules 59(e) and because he has failed to show exceptional circumstances sufficient for such relief, the plaintiff's motion is denied. The Clerk is directed to close docket nos. 42 and 47, and as further set forth. re: 47 MOTION to Strike Document No. 44 filed by Steven Baril, 42 MOTION to Alter Judgment re: 39 Clerk's Judgment, filed by Steven Baril. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 1/8/2015) (rjm) Modified on 1/9/2015 (soh).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
────────────────────────────────────
STEVEN BARIL,
Plaintiff,
- v.-

14 Civ. 02364 (JGK)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
Defendant.
────────────────────────────────────
JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:
The pro se plaintiff, Steven Baril (“Baril”), brought this
action alleging three claims of fraud against defendant JPMorgan
Chase Bank (“Chase”).

Chase moved to dismiss the amended

complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or alternatively for summary
judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.

In an

order filed on November 26, 2014 and dated November 25, 2014,
this Court granted the defendant’s motion and dismissed the case
in its entirety.

The plaintiff now moves under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment.

The

motion is denied.
While there are no formal guidelines, courts have
recognized four basic grounds on which a judgment may be altered
or amended pursuant to Rule 59(e): the need to prevent manifest
injustice, the need to correct errors of law or fact, the
availability of new evidence, or an intervening change in

controlling law.

See Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. National

Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992).
Reconsideration of a court's prior order “is an extraordinary
remedy to be employed sparingly” in the interest of finality.
In re Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc. Sec. Litig., 113 F. Supp. 2d 613,
614 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (citation omitted).

In a motion for

reconsideration, a party may not “advance new facts, issues or
arguments not previously presented to the Court.”

Torres v.

Carry, 672 F. Supp. 2d 346 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 29, 2009) (citation
omitted).
In his motion, the plaintiff offers new evidence that he
contends confirms the fraudulent misrepresentation made by the
defendant.

Nothing about the additional evidence changes the

Court’s prior opinion and judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s
amended complaint.

The plaintiff also reiterates substantially

all of the arguments he made in opposition to the defendant’s
motion to dismiss—namely that he relied on a misrepresentation
made by Chase that Patricia L. Green was an authorized
representative of Chase who could bind the bank in a settlement
and release agreement (“SAR”).

But Chase has never denied that

Patricia L. Green was an authorized representative, nor could
it, as the undisputed facts clearly indicate that Chase has
always performed and continues to perform as though bound by her
signature.
2

While the plaintiff clearly disagrees with the Court's
decision to dismiss his complaint, that is not a reason for the
Court to reconsider this case. Because the plaintiff has failed
to establish a basis for reconsideration or relief under Rules
59(e) and because he has failed to show exceptional
circumstances sufficient for such relief, the plaintiff's motion
is denied. The Clerk is directed to close docket nos. 42 and 47.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

New York, New York
January 8, 2015

_____________/s/____________
John G. Koeltl
United States District Judge

3