Komatsu v. The City of New York et al

Filing 424

ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that, for substantially the same reasons provided in the August 10, 2020 Order (Dkt. 418), the requests for reconsideration of the Orders at Dkts. 118 and 239 and of Judge Gorenstein's Order at Dkt. 405 are DENIE D. It is further ORDERED that, because the letters at Dkts. 420, 421 and 423 do not identify an intervening change of controlling law, new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice, the requests for reconsideratio n of the Order at Dkt. 418 are DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 9/10/2020) (ks) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.

Case 1:18-cv-03698-LGS-GWG Document 424 Filed 09/10/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------X
:
TOWAKI KOMATSU,
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
:
-against:
:
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.,
Defendants. :
------------------------------------------------------------ X

18 Civ. 3698 (LGS)
ORDER

LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge:
WHEREAS, on August 10, 2020, an Order (Dkt. 418) was issued denying
reconsideration of this Court’s Orders issued on March 1, 2019 (Dkt. 118), September 30, 2019
(Dkt. 239), and of Judge Gorenstein’s Order issued on July 28, 2020 (Dkt. 405);
WHEREAS, on August 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed a letter (Dkt. 417) that provided further
objections to Judge Gorenstein’s July 28, 2020, Order (Dkt. 405);
WHEREAS, on August 12, 2020, Plaintiff filed a letter (Dkt. 420) seeking
reconsideration of this Court’s orders issued on March, 1, 2019, denying Plaintiff’s motion to
amend the complaint (Dkt 118), on September 30, 2019, granting in part Defendants’ motion to
dismiss (Dkt. 239) and on August 10, 2020, denying Plaintiff’s prior motions for reconsideration
(Dkt. 418);
WHEREAS on August 19, 2020, Plaintiff filed a letter (Dkt. 421) again requesting
reconsideration of the Orders at Dkts. 118, 239 and 418 because of a video of remarks made by
New York Chief Judge Janet DiFiore about security in New York courthouses;
WHEREAS on August 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed a letter (Dkt. 422) again requesting
reconsideration of the Orders at Dkts. 118 and 239 because of reports obtained after a Freedom
of Information Law request;

Case 1:18-cv-03698-LGS-GWG Document 424 Filed 09/10/20 Page 2 of 2

WHEREAS on August 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed a letter (Dkt. 423) again requesting
reconsideration of the Orders at Dkts. 118, 239 and 418;
WHEREAS, “[a] motion for reconsideration should be granted only when the [movant]
identifies an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need
to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil of Tartikov, Inc.
v. YLL Irrevocable Trust, 729 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Virgin Atlantic Airways, Ltd.
v. Nat’l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration is “strict, and reconsideration will
generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the
court overlooked.” Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir.
2012) (quoting Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995)) (internal
quotation marks omitted); it is hereby
ORDERED that, for substantially the same reasons provided in the August 10, 2020
Order (Dkt. 418), the requests for reconsideration of the Orders at Dkts. 118 and 239 and of
Judge Gorenstein’s Order at Dkt. 405 are DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that, because the letters at Dkts. 420, 421 and 423 do not identify an
intervening change of controlling law, new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or
prevent manifest injustice, the requests for reconsideration of the Order at Dkt. 418 are DENIED.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se
Plaintiff.

Dated: September 10, 2020
New York, New York