Ramgoolie v. Ramgoolie et al

Filing 255

ORDER denying 232 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 234 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 235 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 236 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 238 Motion for Reconsideration. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's motion for reconsideration and for a stay of this action is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the open motions on docket entries 232, 234, 235, 236, and 238. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 4/2/2020) (js)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------ X
JENNY RAMGOOLIE,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-against:
:
ANDY RAMGOOLIE,
:
:
Defendant. :
------------------------------------------------------------ X

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 4/2/2020

16-CV-3345 (VEC)(SN)
ORDER

VALERIE CAPRONI, United States District Judge:
WHEREAS on September 10, 2019, the Court entered an Order granting Plaintiff’s
motion for sanctions and entering a default judgment against Defendant (Dkt. 216);
WHEREAS on December 6, 2019, Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration of the
Court’s September 10, 2019, Order and for a stay of this action pending resolution of a lawsuit
filed in Trinidad subsequent to the filing of this lawsuit (Dkt. 232);
WHEREAS “a notice of motion for reconsideration or reargument of a court order
determining a motion shall be served within fourteen (14) days after the entry of the Court’s
determination of the original motion, or in the case of a court order resulting in a judgment,
within fourteen (14) days after the entry of the judgment,” Local Civ. R. 6.3;
WHEREAS a motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) may nonetheless be
considered by the Court after 14 days has lapsed when a party could not have discovered the new
evidence to pursue their motion for reconsideration with reasonable diligence until after the 14day period, see Vicuna v. O.P. Schuman & Sons, Inc., 298 F. Supp. 3d 419, 434 (E.D.N.Y.
2017);

WHEREAS the Court finds that Defendant could have, with just minimal diligence,
proffered the “new information” in his opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions that
Defendant’s counsel claims he only belatedly discovered, see Def.’s Mem. of Law (Dkt. 233) at
3–5;
WHEREAS the Court finds that Defendant’s filing of a motion for reconsideration 87
days after the Court entered its Order dated September 10, 2019, is inexcusable;
WHEREAS, in any event, “[t]he 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—matters, in other words, that might
reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court,” Shrader v. CSX Transp.,
Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995);
WHEREAS a party may obtain relief on a motion for reconsideration “only when the
defendant identifies an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence,
or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice,” Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil of
Tartikov, Inc. v. YLL Irrevocable Tr., 729 F.3d 99, 108 (2d Cir. 2013) (quotation omitted);
WHEREAS a party moving for reconsideration based on newly discovered evidence
must show that “(1) the proffered evidence was unavailable despite the exercise of due diligence
by the movant in procuring evidentiary support, and (2) manifest injustice will result if the court
opts not to reconsider its earlier decision,” Rosner v. United States, No. 16-CV-7256, 2018 WL
5981945, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2018) (quoting In re Rezulin Prods. Liab. Litig., 224 F.R.D.
346, 350 (S.D.N.Y. 2004);

2

WHEREAS the Court finds that Defendant’s newly proffered evidence both is
unpersuasive 1 and was known to Defendant and within his possession when Plaintiff’s motion
for sanctions was being briefed;
WHEREAS the Second Circuit has “instructed courts to use a non-exhaustive list of
factors when contemplating a stay in favor of a foreign proceeding, including: (1) the similarity
of the issues; (2) the order in which the actions were filed; (3) the adequacy of the alternate
forum; (4) the potential prejudice to either party; (5) the convenience of the parties; (6) the
connection between the litigation and the United States; and (7) the connection between the
litigation and the foreign jurisdiction,” C.D.S., Inc. v. Zetler, 198 F. Supp. 3d 323, 331 (S.D.N.Y.
2016) (citing Royal & Sun All. Ins. Co. of Canada v. Century Int’l Arms, Inc., 466 F.3d 88, 94
(2d Cir. 2006);
WHEREAS on September 6, 2018, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss
based on forum non conveniens (Dkt. 149); and
WHEREAS the Court finds that staying this action pending an outcome in the
Trinidadian lawsuit would serve no principles of comity, severely prejudice Plaintiff, and

The Court notes that a substantial portion of the materials presented in support were hearsay. Defendant’s,
Kevin Ramgoolie’s, and Jeremy Ramgoolie’s declarations reflected some first-hand information, but those
declarations also contained gaps and inconsistencies. For example, Defendant declared that “[Kevin] is the
authorized signatory and the one needed to request the documentation” from the Trinidadian banks. A. Ramgoolie
Decl. (Dkt. 238) ¶ 21. And yet Kevin does not corroborate that fact in his declaration, declaring only vaguely that
he “was unable to help [Defendant] due to a variety of circumstances.” K. Ramgoolie Decl. (Dkt. 232-4) ¶ 19. In
addition, Defendant declared that he has now received documents from Kevin, as they “had been re-assembled in a
single location” that Kevin and his staff could search. A. Ramgoolie Decl. ¶ 27; see also K. Ramgoolie Decl. ¶ 22.
But no declarant stated when those documents were “re-assembled.” The Court suspects the purported re-assembly
happened before the Court issued its September 10, 2019, Order, given that Andy immediately flew to Trinidad,
called Kevin, and obtained those documents within the same month as that Order. Indeed, it is particularly telling
that Defendant was able to obtain and produce documents so soon after this Court entered its Order even though he
allegedly had not been able to do so for the seven months leading up to it, suggesting that his purported new-found
access was a not-so-subtle attempt to escape sanctions for his persistent failures to comply with his obligations in
this lawsuit. See September 10, 2019, Order at 14.
1

3

undermine the interests of the United States, given the time and resources expended in this action
already and that liability has been determined;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for reconsideration and for a stay of
this action is DENIED.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the open motions on docket entries
232, 234, 235, 236, and 238.
SO ORDERED.
________________________
VALERIE CAPRONI
United States District Judge

Date: April 2, 2020
New York, New York

4