Romero v. DHL Express (U.S.A.), Inc.
Filing
53
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 49 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 47 Memorandum & Opinion, filed by Mauricio Baez Romero. This Court denied the plaintiff's motion to remand and granted the defendant's motion for a judgment on the pleadings. The plaintiff has now filed a motion for reconsideration. (As further set forth in this Order.) Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied. The Clerk is directed to close docket no. 49. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 1/27/2017) (cf)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
────────────────────────────────────
MAURICIO BAEZ ROMERO,
Plaintiff,
15-cv-4844 (JGK)
- against –
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER
DHL EXPRESS (U.S.A), INC.,
Defendant.
────────────────────────────────────
JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:
The plaintiff, Mauricio Baez Romero, originally brought
this action against his former employer, defendant DHL Express
(U.S.A.) Inc., alleging that DHL violated the terms of two
collective bargaining agreements, as well as New York Labor Law
(“NYLL”) § 198.
This Court denied the plaintiff’s motion to
remand and granted the defendant’s motion for a judgment on the
pleadings.
The plaintiff has now filed a motion for
reconsideration.
The motion is denied.
The decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration
rests within the sound discretion of the district court.
U.S.
Bank Nat. Ass'n v. Nesbitt Bellevue Prop. LLC, 859 F. Supp. 2d
602, 610 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).
The Court’s reconsideration of a
prior order is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly.
Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich Ltd., 800 F. Supp. 2d 571, 572
(S.D.N.Y. 2011).
“The major grounds justifying reconsideration
are an intervening change of controlling law, the availability
1
of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent
manifest injustice.”
Virgin Atlantic Airways, Ltd. v. Nat'l
Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992) (citation
omitted).
The plaintiff repeats the arguments previously made and has
therefore failed to meet the requirements for a motion for
consideration.
The plaintiff does not identify any intervening
change of controlling law.
The plaintiff does not point to any
new evidence that was previously unavailable to him.
The
plaintiff fails to show the need to correct a clear error or
prevent manifest injustice.
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion
for reconsideration is denied.
The Clerk is directed to close docket no. 49.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
New York, New York
January 27, 2017
_____________/s/_______________
John G. Koeltl
United States District Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?