Shim-Larkin v. City of New York
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied. This resolves Dkt. No. 675. The Court finds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). So ordered. re: 675 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 666 Memorandum & Opinion filed by Heena Shim-Larkin. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/23/2020) (rjm)
Case 1:16-cv-06099-AJN-KNF Document 725 Filed 12/23/20 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
OPINION & ORDER
City of New York,
ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
On September 28, 2020, the Court issued an opinion denying Plaintiff’s various
objections to decisions by Magistrate Judge Fox regarding discovery and sanctions. Dkt. No.
666. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration on October 13, 2020. Dkt. No. 675. As of
November 20, 2020, this motion has been fully briefed. Dkt Nos. 695, 703. For the reasons
explained below, that motion is DENIED.
A motion for reconsideration should be granted only if the movant 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, 104 (2d Cir. 2013) (quotations and citation omitted). It 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) (quoting Sequa Corp. v. GBJ Corp., 156 F.3d 136,
144 (2d Cir. 1998). Moreover, “[t]he decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is
within the sound discretion of the district court.” Corines v. Am. Physicians Ins. Tr., 769 F.
Case 1:16-cv-06099-AJN-KNF Document 725 Filed 12/23/20 Page 2 of 3
Supp. 2d 584, 594 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). “Reconsideration of a previous order by the court is an
‘extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of
scarce judicial resources.’” RST (2005) Inc. v. Research in Motion Ltd., 597 F. Supp. 2d 362,
365 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (quoting In re Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc. Sec. Litig., 113 F. Supp. 2d 613, 614
In her briefs, Plaintiff repeats her initial claims, argues that the Court overlooked her
arguments and the sources she cited in support, and alleges she was treated unfairly or unequally
by the Court. Dkt. No. 676, 703. However, Plaintiff identifies no new evidence or facts
unknown to the Court and does not argue an intervening change in controlling law. A motion
for reconsideration is not a means for “relitigating old issues” that the Court has already
considered, Analytical Surveys, Inc., 684 F.3d at 52, and Plaintiff’s disagreement with the
Court’s analysis of her arguments is not a basis for reconsideration.
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied. This
resolves Dkt. No. 675. The Court finds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from
this order would not be taken in good faith. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445
Dated: December 23, 2020
New York, New York
ALISON J. NATHAN
United States District Judge
Case 1:16-cv-06099-AJN-KNF Document 725 Filed 12/23/20 Page 3 of 3
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?