Pacific Life Insurance Company et al v. The Bank of New York Mellon
Filing
61
OPINION AND ORDER: re: 57 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 53 Memorandum & Opinion, filed by The Bank of New York Mellon. Accordingly, Defendant's argument that the Court misconstrues the prevention doctrine does not present an adequate basis for reconsideration. For these reasons, Defendants motion for reconsideration is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Docket Entry #57. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 4/17/2018) (js)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------X
:
PACIFIC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and :
PACIFIC LIFE & ANNUITY COMPANY,
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
v.
:
:
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,
:
:
Defendant. :
:
------------------------------------------------------ X
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #: _________________
April 17, 2018
DATE FILED: ______________
17 Civ. 1388 (KPF)
OPINION AND ORDER
KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge:
On March 16, 2018, the Court issued an Opinion and Order denying
Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (Dkt. #53). Two weeks later, on March 30,
2018, Defendant moved for reconsideration. (Dkt. #57). After carefully
reviewing the parties’ submissions (Dkt. #57-58, 60), the Court is unpersuaded
that it overlooked any controlling legal authority or facts that would alter its
decision. The Court therefore denies Defendant’s motion for reconsideration.
In this Circuit, motions for reconsideration are governed by a strict
standard: They are to 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). 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) (quoting Sequa Corp. v.
GBJ Corp., 156 F.3d 136, 144 (2d Cir. 1998)). “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 and citation omitted).
Defendant has failed to identify any legal or factual issues overlooked by
the Court that would alter the Court’s conclusion. Defendant begins by
reasserting its position, which this Court carefully considered but ultimately
rejected, as to the preclusive effect vel non of the settlement agreement and
Article 77 proceeding that released all claims against Countrywide and its
parent Bank of America. In Defendant’s view, the Court “misapprehended the
relevance … of the settlement and the effect of its approval.” (Dkt. #58 at 1).
Yet the Court did not, in fact, overlook any controlling law or material facts,
and Defendant does not suggest as much. Instead, Defendant here does little
more than highlight a substantive disagreement with the Court as to the
nature of Plaintiffs’ claims in the pending action. That is not an adequate basis
for a motion for reconsideration. Shrader, 70 F.3d at 257. And, in any event,
the Court remains convinced that “the present action pertains to conduct not
directly at issue in the Countrywide Settlement[.]” Pacific Life Ins. Co. v. Bank
of N.Y. Mellon, No. 17 Civ. 1388 (KPF), 2018 WL 1382105, at *12 (S.D.N.Y.
Mar. 16, 2018).
2
Defendant next asserts that “the Court overlooked controlling appellate
authority.” (Dkt. #58 at 1). In particular, Defendant claims that the Court
ignored Fixed Income Shares: Series M v. Citibank, N.A., 69 N.Y.S.3d 288 (1st
Dep’t 2018), which Defendant raised to the Court’s attention by letter dated
January 29, 2018 (Dkt. #48). The Court did no such thing. In fact, the Court
closely considered the case, as well as the parties’ letters related thereto. (Dkt.
#48-49). That review led the Court to conclude that Fixed Income Shares is
factually distinct from the case at bar. There, plaintiffs do not appear to have
alleged any active conduct preventing an event of default; instead, they appear
to have relied exclusively on defendant’s inaction (i.e., its failure to send a
notice to cure). See Fixed Income Shares: Series M, 69 N.Y.S.3d at 290. Here,
by contrast, the Court explicitly found that Plaintiffs had alleged active
frustration of other parties’ ability to provide notice, as well as affirmative
obligations on Defendant’s part to provide notice of breaches. See Pacific Life
Ins. Co., 2018 WL 1382105, at *10.
Even if the Court had misconstrued the prevention doctrine — which it
did not do — it would not “alter the conclusion reached by the court.” Shrader,
70 F.3d at 257. Indeed, the Court decided that Plaintiffs’ event of default
allegations were sufficient to survive Defendant’s motion to dismiss on various
grounds, including that (i) they “create a reasonable expectation that discovery
will reveal evidence of written notice,” (ii) they assert defects that “constituted
an automatic [event of default],” and (iii) they “create a reasonable expectation
that Defendant’s [r]esponsible [o]fficers had received written notice of [e]vents of
3
[d]efault[.]” Id. at *9-10. That is, the denial of Defendant’s motion to dismiss
did not turn on the application of the prevention doctrine. Accordingly,
Defendant’s argument that the Court misconstrues the prevention doctrine
does not present an adequate basis for reconsideration.
For these reasons, Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is denied. The
Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Docket Entry #57.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
April 17, 2018
New York, New York
__________________________________
KATHERINE POLK FAILLA
United States District Judge
4
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?