Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. Intrepid Group LLC et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER re: 112 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 106 Memorandum & Opinion, filed by Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company, 108 FIRST MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by The City Of New Yo rk, 116 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Intrepid Group LLC. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. ("Philadelphia") has filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order of March 26, 2018, in which the Court denied Philadelphia's motion for summary judgment, awarded summary judgment to Intrepid Group, LLC, and the City of New York, and directed the Clerk to enter judgment against Philadelphia. Dkt. No. 112; see Phila. Inde m. Ins. Co. v. Intrepid Grp., LLC, No. 16-cv-7928, 2018 WL 1517199 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2018). Intrepid and the City have separately moved for attorneys' fees. Dkt. Nos. 108, 116. Philadelphia's motion for reconsideration is denied with prej udice, and the motions for fees by Intrepid and the City are denied without prejudice; as further set forth herein. Philadelphia therefore fails to show the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Accordingly, Philad elphia's motion for reconsideration is denied. The motions for fees filed by Intrepid and the City are premature because Philadelphia may appeal the judgment in this case. The motions by Intrepid and the City are therefore denied without prejud ice and may be renewed thirty days after the time to appeal has expired or, if an appeal is taken, thirty days after a mandate issues from the Court of Appeals. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B) advisory committee's notes to the 1993 amendment ("[T]he court under [Rule 54(d)(2)(B)] may effectively extend the period [for filing a motion for fees] by permitting claims to be filed after resolution of the appeal."). (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 5/15/2018) (mro)
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.