Vista Food Exchange, Inc. v. Lawson Foods, LLC

Filing 274

ORDER granting 264 Motion to Alter Judgment re: 264 MOTION to Alter Judgment ., 268 LETTER MOTION to Expedite addressed to Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. from Jonathan Scott dated July 20, 2023. ; dismissing as moot [ 268] Letter Motion to Expedite. For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's motion, ECF No. 264, is GRANTED. As such, Plaintiff's motion to expedite, ECF No. 268, is dismissed as moot. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the open motions at ECF No. 264 and 268. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr on 10/23/2023) (tg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------------- x
VISTA FOOD EXCHANGE, INC.,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
:
-against:
LAWSON FOODS, LLC,
:
:
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
--------------------------------------------------------------------- :
:
x
ANDREW L. CARTER, JR., District Judge:

17-CV-07454 (ALC) (SN)
ORDER

On April 3, 2023 the Clerk of this Court entered judgment in favor of Vista Food
Exchange, Inc. against Lawson Foods, LLC in the amount of $3,133,627.31. ECF No. 263.
On April 17, 2023, Plaintiff moved under Rule 59(e) to alter or amend the Clerk’s
judgment. ECF No. 264. Plaintiff seeks for an amended judgment to be entered against Lawson
Foods LLC, Simon Law and Fortress Foods, jointly and severally. Id. Defendants filed their
opposition, ECF No. 266, and Plaintiff filed its reply, ECF No. 267.
A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry
of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Plaintiff’s motion is therefore timely. The Court evaluates
a motion to amend a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) under the same
standard as a motion for reconsideration under Local Rule 6.3. Magee v. Walt Disney Co., No.
19-CV-10274 (AJN), 2021 WL 4805463, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2021). “A court may grant a
motion to alter or amend a judgment where (1) there is an intervening change in the controlling
law; (2) new evidence previously not available comes to light; or (3) it becomes necessary to

1

remedy a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice.” Peterson v. Syracuse Police Dept.,
467 F. App’x 31, 34 (2d Cir. 2012). “Reconsideration of a court’s previous order is an
extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of
scarce judicial resources.” Montanile v. Nat’l Broad. Co., 216 F.Supp.2d 341, 342 (S.D.N.Y.
2002) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
On March 14, 2022, Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn recommended that the Court find
Lawson, Law, and Fortress Foods jointly and severally liable for $2,258,537. ECF No. 253 at 28.
On March 31, 2023, the Court adopted Judge Netburn’s report and recommendation, ECF No.
261, and subsequently issued an amended order, ECF No. 262. In its amended order, the Court
found Lawson Foods LLC liable for $2,258,537. Id. at 7. The Clerk of the Court entered the
judgment on April 3, 2023. ECF No. 263.
Plaintiff has moved to alter or amend the Clerk’s judgment on the basis that judgment is
only entered against Lawson Foods LLC, rather than Lawson Foods LLC, Simon Law and
Fortress Foods, jointly and severally, as Judge Netburn recommended. ECF No. 253 at 28. The
record shows the Court intended to adopt Judge Netburn’s recommendation in full, yet omitted
Judge Netburn’s language holding Lawson Foods LLC, Simon Law and Fortress Foods, jointly
and severally liable. ECF No. 262. As such, the Court erred in omitting Simon Law and Fortress
Foods from its judgment.
In addition, Plaintiff seeks to amend the judgment to enforce the Court’s separate finding
of contempt in November 2019 that Lawson Foods LLC, Simon Law and Fortress Foods be
jointly and severally liable to pay Vista $392,376, representing $314,576 in attorneys’ fees and
$77,800 in daily contempt fines that had accrued. ECF No. 201 at 17; ECF No. 253 at 2, 23, 26.
To date, Defendants have not yet fully complied with this order. The Court may alter or amend a

2

judgment to correct an error or prevent an unfair result. In the interest of justice, the judgment
must be amended to direct Defendants to pay the contempt award in full within 30 days, or
possibly face further civil contempt proceedings.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion, ECF No. 264, is GRANTED. As such,
Plaintiff’s motion to expedite, ECF No. 268, is dismissed as moot. The Clerk of the Court is
respectfully directed to terminate the open motions at ECF No. 264 and 268.

SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 23, 2023
New York, New York

__________________________________
ANDREW L. CARTER, JR.
United States District Judge

3