Suarez v. Mosaic Sales Solutions US Operating Co., LLC

Filing 32

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER......as described in the July 7 Opinion, the fact that Suarez was offered other employment was only one of several facts relied upon by the Court in determining that Suarez failed to adequately plead the jurisdictional minimum. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Suarezs July 20 motion for reconsideration is denied. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 7/26/2017) (gr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------X
:
DANIEL SUAREZ,
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-v:
:
MOSAIC SALES SOLUTIONS US OPERATING
:
CO., LLC,
:
Defendant.
:
:
----------------------------------------X

17cv00477
MEMORANDUM OPINION
& ORDER

APPEARANCES
For Daniel Suarez:
David Abrams
305 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY 10007
DENISE COTE, District Judge:
The first amended complaint in this employment
discrimination case was dismissed on July 7, 2017 for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.

On July 20, Suarez moved for

reconsideration pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.3 and Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 60.
Local Civil Rule 6.3 provides parties with an opportunity
to inform the Court of “matters or controlling decisions” which
counsel believes the Court has “overlooked.”

It does not

provide counsel the opportunity to supplement their factual
submissions after a case has been dismissed.

“Local Rule 6.3 is

narrowly construed and strictly applied so as to avoid
repetitive arguments on issues that the court has already

considered fully.”

In re Gen. Elec. Co. Sec. Litig., 856 F.

Supp. 2d 645, 652 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).

The Rule also directs that

“[n]o affidavits shall be filed by any party unless directed by
the Court.”
Suarez also appears to bring his motion for reconsideration
pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1), 60(b)(3), or 60(b)(6).

Under these

provisions, a court
may relieve a party or its legal representative from a
final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following
reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect;
. . .
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or
extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an
opposing party;
. . .
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

Relief under Rule 60(b) is “generally

not favored and is properly granted only upon a showing of
exceptional circumstances.”

Insurance Co. of N. Am. v. Pub.

Serv. Mut. Ins. Co., 609 F.3d 122, 131 (2d Cir. 2010) (citation
omitted).

“[A] Rule 60(b)(3) motion cannot be granted absent

clear and convincing evidence of material misrepresentations and
cannot serve as an attempt to relitigate the merits.”
v. New York Univ., 865 F.2d 478, 484 (2d Cir. 1989).

2

Fleming
A Rule

60(b)(3) movant “must show that the conduct complained of
prevented the moving party from fully and fairly presenting his
case.”

State St. Bank & Trust Co. v. Inversiones Errazuriz

Limitada, 374 F.3d 158, 176 (2d Cir. 2004) (citation omitted).
Moreover, Rule 60(b)(6) applies only “when the asserted grounds
for relief are not recognized in clauses (1)-(5) of the Rule and
there are extraordinary circumstances justifying relief.”
Tapper v. Hearn, 833 F.3d 166, 172 (2d Cir. 2016) (citation
omitted).

“Rule 60(b) strikes a balance between serving the

ends of justice and preserving the finality of judgments.
Although it should be broadly construed to do substantial
justice, final judgments should not be lightly reopened.”
at 170 (citation omitted).

Id.

The decision to grant or deny a Rule

60(b) motion is within the sound discretion of the district
court.

Aczel v. Labonia, 584 F.3d 52, 61 (2d Cir. 2009).

Suarez’s motion for reconsideration rests entirely on his
argument that the Court should not have relied on the
defendant’s representation that it offered Suarez other
employment after it discovered that it had rescinded its prior
job offer in error.

Suarez attaches a January 10, 2017 email to

his memorandum to argue that he was only offered “an expedited
interview” for alternate positions, as opposed to a job offer.1

Local Rule 6.3 prohibits parties from filing affidavits in
connection with a motion for reconsideration unless directed by
1

3

This is not an appropriate use of a motion for reconsideration.
The defendant’s representations to which Suarez now objects were
contained in the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Suarez had the

opportunity at that time to dispute those representations and to
submit evidence in opposition to them.

He did not do either.

It is too late to do so now.
Moreover, as described in the July 7 Opinion, the fact that
Suarez was offered other employment was only one of several
facts relied upon by the Court in determining that Suarez failed
to adequately plead the jurisdictional minimum.

Accordingly, it

is hereby
ORDERED that Suarez’s July 20 motion for reconsideration is
denied.
Dated:

New York, New York
July 26, 2017
__________________________________
DENISE COTE
United States District Judge

the Court. Suarez did not seek the Court’s permission to attach
the January 10 email.
4