Sklodowska-Grezak v. Stein et al

Filing 108

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 107 MOTION to Strike Document No. [#37 and #67]. filed by Grazyna Sklodowska-Grezak, 105 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 103 Memorandum & Opinion filed by Grazyna Sklodowska-Grezak, 106 MOTION to Stay. filed by Grazyna Sklodowska-Grezak. "The standard for granting [a motion for reconsideration] is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked." Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). The plaintiff has failed to make such a showing, and has not pointed to any information that "might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by th e court." Id. The motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 105, is therefore denied. The plaintiff has also filed a motion to strike the defendants motions to dismiss. Those motions have already been decided, and the plaintiffs motion is therefor e denied as moot. The plaintiff has failed to show what irreparable injury would result from the dismissal of her case in this court, which dismissal was thoroughly justified. The application for a stay, ECF No. 106, is therefore denied. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 4/5/2017) (cf)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
────────────────────────────────────
GRAZYNA SKLOWDOWSKA-GREZAK,
15-cv-1670
Plaintiff,
- against JUDITH A. STEIN, PH.D, ET AL.,

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

Defendants.
────────────────────────────────────
JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:
The Court has received several motions filed by the
plaintiff, including motions for reconsideration of the Court’s
Order denying the plaintiff’s motion to reopen the case, ECF No.
103; to strike the defendants’ motions to dismiss, ECF Nos. 37
and 67; and for a stay of the Court’s Order dismissing the case,
ECF No. 98. See ECF Nos. 105-107 (plaintiff’s motions).
“The standard for granting [a motion for reconsideration]
is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless
the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that
the court overlooked.” Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d
255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). The plaintiff has failed to make such a
showing, and has not pointed to any information that “might
reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the
court.” Id. The motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 105, is
therefore denied.
The plaintiff has also filed a motion to strike the
defendants’ motions to dismiss. Those motions have already been
decided, and the plaintiff’s motion is therefore denied as moot.
To the extent that the motion is intended as one for
reconsideration of the Court’s order granting those motions and
dismissing the case, ECF No. 98, for the reasons explained
above, that application is also denied.

Finally, the plaintiff seeks a stay pending the disposition
of a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit. ECF No. 106. That application is denied. The
plaintiff has failed to show a likelihood of success on any
petition for a writ of mandamus. Moreover, the plaintiff has
failed to show any likelihood of irreparable injury if the stay
is not granted. See McNamee v. Clemens, 2014 WL 1682025, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. April 28, 2014) (setting out the factors to be
considered by the Court in analyzing a motion for a stay pending
the outcome of an application for a writ of mandamus) (citing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 62). The petitioner’s case has been dismissed
and she is free to file any available appeal in the Court of
Appeals and to seek expedited review in that Court. The
plaintiff has failed to show what irreparable injury would
result from the dismissal of her case in this court, which
dismissal was thoroughly justified. The application for a stay,
ECF No. 106, is therefore denied.

SO ORDERED.
Dated:

New York, New York
April 5, 2017

___/s/________________________
John G. Koeltl
United States District Judge