Indemnity Insurance Company of North America v. Expeditors International of Washington, Inc. et al

Filing 98

ORDER denying 89 Motion for Reconsideration. Having reviewed the record and the parties' memorandums of law, the Court concludes that it overlooked neither a controlling issue of law nor a crucial fact in the record. As this Court expli citly noted in its Opinion and Order, Plaintiff failed to make the argument in its briefing that indirect carriers qualified as carriers within the meaning of China Air's waybill. Accordingly, the argument is deemed waived. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is therefore DENIED. The Clerk of the Court isdirected to close the motion at Docket Number 89. So Ordered.. (Signed by Judge J. Paul Oetken on 3/31/2020) (js)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY
OF NORTH AMERICA as subrogor of
GE AVIATION MATERIALS, L.P.,
Plaintiff,

17-CV-2575 (JPO)
ORDER

-vEXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL OF
WASHINGTON, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge:
Plaintiff Indemnity Insurance Company of North America moves for reconsideration of
this Court’s Opinion and Order resolving the parties’ cross-motions for summary. (Dkt. No. 89.)
Specifically, Plaintiff argues that this Court erred when it held that Plaintiff waived the argument
that indirect carriers qualified as carriers within the meaning of China Air’s waybill. (See Dkt.
No. 88 at 5 & n.1.)
“A motion for reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the
interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources.” Drapkin v. Mafco Consol.
Grp., Inc., 818 F. Supp. 2d 678, 695 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (citation and quotations omitted). To
prevail, the movant must demonstrate either (i) an intervening change in controlling law; (ii) the
availability of new evidence; or (iii) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.
Jacob v. Duane Reade, Inc., 293 F.R.D. 578, 580–81 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citation omitted); see
also Cioce v. County of Westchester, 128 F. App’x 181, 185 (2d Cir. 2005) (“Generally, motions
for reconsideration are not granted 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.”).

1

Having reviewed the record and the parties’ memorandums of law, the Court concludes
that it overlooked neither a controlling issue of law nor a crucial fact in the record. As this Court
explicitly noted in its Opinion and Order, Plaintiff failed to make the argument in its briefing that
indirect carriers qualified as carriers within the meaning of China Air’s waybill. Accordingly,
the argument is deemed waived.
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is therefore DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is
directed to close the motion at Docket Number 89.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 31, 2020
New York, New York
____________________________________
J. PAUL OETKEN
United States District Judge

2