Pouncy v. Advanced Focus LLC et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 124 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 121 Clerk's Judgment, filed by Larry Pouncy. By Opinion and Order entered September 25, 2017, the Court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment in i ts entirety and denied Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in its entirety, dismissing all of Plaintiffs claims and closing this case. (Docket No. 120). On October 25, 2017, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a motion for reconsideration of that decision. (Docket No. 124). Upon review of Plaintiff's papers, that motion is DENIED. Reconsideration of Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status on appeal is also denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 124 and to mail a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to Plaintiff. The case remains closed, and as further set forth herein. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 4/16/2018) (ras)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ADVANCED FOCUS LLC, et al.,
JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge:
By Opinion and Order entered September 25, 2017, the Court granted Defendant’s
motion for summary judgment in its entirety and denied Plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment in its entirety, dismissing all of Plaintiff’s claims and closing this case. (Docket No.
120). On October 25, 2017, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a motion for reconsideration of
that decision. (Docket No. 124).1 Upon review of Plaintiff’s papers, that motion is DENIED.
Motions for reconsideration are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and
Local Civil Rule 6.3, which are meant to “ensure the finality of decisions and to prevent the
practice of a losing party examining a decision and then plugging the gaps of a lost motion with
additional matters.” Medisim Ltd. v. BestMed LLC, No. 10-CV-2463 (SAS), 2012 WL 1450420,
at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2012). A district court “has broad discretion in determining whether to
grant a motion [for reconsideration].” Baker v. Dorfman, 239 F.3d 415, 427 (2d Cir. 2000).
Local Rule 6.3 specifies that notice of a motion for reconsideration “shall be served
within . . . fourteen (14) days after the entry of the judgment.” Although “pro se litigants
generally are required to inform themselves regarding procedural rules and to comply with
them,” Edwards v. INS, 59 F.3d 5, 8 (2d Cir. 1995), and Plaintiff waited a full month to file his
motion, the Court will nevertheless treat Plaintiff’s motion as timely.
Such a motion “is appropriate where ‘the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data
that the court overlooked — matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter
the conclusion reached by the court.’” Medisim, 2012 WL 1450420, at *1 (quoting In re BDC 56
LLC, 330 F.3d 111, 123 (2d Cir. 2003)). “The major grounds justifying reconsideration are an
intervening change in controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a
clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat’l Mediation Bd., 956
F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). It is well established that the
rules permitting motions for reconsideration must be “narrowly construed and strictly applied so
as to avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the [C]ourt.”
United States v. Treacy, No. 08-CR-0366 (RLC), 2009 WL 47496, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2009).
Applying those standards here, Plaintiff’s arguments fall short. Plaintiff does not point to
any evidence or controlling decisions that the Court overlooked. Instead, he simply reasserts
arguments that the Court previously considered and rejected in granting Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment. By way of example, Plaintiff once again cites other recruiters hired by
Defendants to a higher rate of pay. (Docket No. 125 (“Pl.’s Mem.”), at 15). But the Court
rejected Plaintiff’s arguments on that score on the first go-around, citing evidence that the other
recruiters “were substantially more qualified than [Plaintiff].” Pouncy v. Advanced Focus LLC,
No. 15-CV-6260 (JMF), 2017 WL 4280949, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2017). A motion for
reconsideration is “not a vehicle for relitigating old issues, presenting the case under new
theories, securing a rehearing on the merits, or otherwise taking a second bite at the apple.”
Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012) (internal
quotation marks omitted). In the final analysis, that is all Plaintiff seeks.
Plaintiff seeks reconsideration on two other fronts as well. First, he complains that the
“Court overlooked the fact [that] Defendants failed to answer and respond to [Plaintiff’s] motion
for judgment [on the pleadings].” (Pl.’s Mem. 8). But the Court denied that motion without
prejudice as premature, and there is no basis to reconsider that decision. (Docket No. 50).
Second, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s certification that any appeal from its
Opinion and Order granting Defendants’ summary judgment “would not be taken in good faith,”
and the Court’s denial of in forma pauperis status to Plaintiff. (See Pl.’s Mem. 27-30). But
nothing in Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration alters the Court’s conclusion that any appeal
from the Court’s decision would be frivolous. See Pouncy, 2017 WL 4280949, at *8.(citing
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962)); see also, e.g., Corrado v. Cheng, No.
15-CV-7221 (SJF), 2017 WL 5495813, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2017) (denying reconsideration
“of the Court’s certification that any appeal of the [court’s prior order] would not be taken in
good faith” where “Plaintiff fails to identify facts or arguments that the Court overlooked”).
Accordingly, reconsideration of Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status on appeal is also denied.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 124 and to mail a copy of this
Memorandum Opinion and Order to Plaintiff. The case remains closed.
Date: April 16, 2018
New York, New York
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?