Gym Door Repairs, Inc. et al v. Young Equipment Sales, Inc. et al

Filing 1043

ORDER: Accordingly, the Guardian Defendants' motion for reconsideration is DENIED. The Guardian Defendants' motion for a status conference is also DENIED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang on 3/31/2023) (rro)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------x
GYM DOOR REPAIRS, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
-againstGUARDIAN GYM EQUIPMENT, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

15-CV-4244 (JGK) (OTW)
ORDER

-------------------------------------------------------------x
ONA T. WANG, United States Magistrate Judge:
On July 6, 2021, Guardian filed a motion for an extension of time to include additional
exhibits for omitted fees for up to 4 months in the 4th quarters of 2015, 2016, and 2017, that
had been previously omitted due to yet another “malfunction in the PCLaw program.” (ECF
1020 at 1). This motion was opposed by both Plaintiffs and the Tri-State Defendants. (ECF 1021,
1023). The Court found that the Guardian Defendants did not even attempt to explain the
malfunction, how it caused the alleged omissions, or how they would plan to address the
malfunction in future submissions. (ECF 1025 at 2). The Guardian Defendants had years and
multiple chances to submit the information needed to support their request. (ECF 1025 at 2).
Accordingly, the Court denied the motion on July 15, 2021. (ECF 1025 at 2).
In response, the Guardian Defendants filed a letter motion for the Court to reconsider
its denial of their motion for supplemental briefing (ECF 1032) and another letter motion for
the Court to accept their supplemental exhibits (ECF 1033). The standard for reconsideration is
strict, and “will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions . .
. that the court overlooked.” Eddystone Rail Co. v. Jamex Transfer Services, 17-CV-1266 (WHP),

2019 WL 181308 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2019). A court may grant reconsideration if a movant
“demonstrates an intervening change in controlling law, . . . or the need to correct clear error
or prevent manifest injustice.” Id. (internal citations omitted). The Guardian Defendants have
done neither.
Accordingly, the Guardian Defendants’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED. The
Guardian Defendants’ motion for a status conference is also DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 31, 2023
New York, New York

s/ Ona T. Wang
Ona T. Wang
United States Magistrate Judge