Kairam, M.D. v. West Side GI, LLC

Filing 55

ORDER denying 48 Motion for Reconsideration re 47 Order on Motion to Dismiss. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 48. By January 22, 2021, Plaintiff shall file her amended complaint. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Analisa Torres on 1/8/2021) (va)

Case 1:19-cv-00953-AT Document 55 Filed 01/08/21 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
INDIRA KAIRAM, M.D.,

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #: _________________
DATE FILED: 1/8/2021

Plaintiff,
-againstWEST SIDE GI, LLC,

19 Civ. 953 (AT)
ORDER

Defendant.
ANALISA TORRES, District Judge:
On July 20, 2020, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint
(the “Order”). ECF No. 47. Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration of the Order. For the
reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
“Local Rule 6.3 permits a party to move for reconsideration based on matters or
controlling decisions which counsel believes the court has overlooked.” Space Hunters, Inc. v.
United States, 500 F. App’x 76, 81 (2d Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted); see also Dietrich v. Bauer, 198 F.R.D. 397, 399 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). “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—
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).
“Local Rule 6.3 is to be narrowly construed and strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive
arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the Court.” Dietrich, 198 F.R.D. at 399.
“A motion for reconsideration is neither an opportunity to advance new facts or arguments nor to
reiterate arguments that were previously rejected.” M.K.B. v. Eggleston, No. 05 Civ. 10446,
2006 WL 3230162, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2006). “Rather, the sole function of a proper motion
for reconsideration is to call to the Court’s attention dispositive facts or controlling authority that
were plainly presented in the prior proceedings but were somehow overlooked in the Court’s
decision: in other words, an obvious and glaring mistake.” Id.
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration must be denied because she has not raised any facts
or caselaw that were not previously considered by the Court. See Greenblatt v. Gluck, 265 F.
Supp. 2d 346, 351 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (“[Plaintiff] has failed to put forward any controlling
decisions or factual matters that were placed before the Court when it determined that the
complaint should be dismissed. On these grounds alone, the motion must be denied.”).
Additionally, her motion must be denied because she attempts to raise new arguments about a
deficient pleading not before the Court. Eggleston, 2006 WL 3230162, at *1.
First, Plaintiff reiterates prior arguments that the Court previously rejected. Plaintiff
contends that her allegations in this action include new causes of action that she did not raise in

Case 1:19-cv-00953-AT Document 55 Filed 01/08/21 Page 2 of 2

her first action. 1 Pl. Mem. at 1, ECF No. 48-1. The Court held that Plaintiff’s new allegations
could have been brought in that action, where she had the opportunity to cure any pleading
defects. Order at 7–8; see, e.g., Oliver v. New York State Police, No. 19 Civ. 233, 2020 WL
1849484, at *7 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 13, 2020) (dismissing plaintiff’s Title VII hostile work
environment, gender discrimination, and retaliation claims as duplicative where complaint relied
upon all factual allegations pleaded in previous action’s complaint).
Second, the Court disagrees that it should have considered Plaintiff’s deficiently-filed
amended complaint when ruling on Defendant’s motion to dismiss her original complaint.
Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s original complaint, ECF No. 36, and the parties fully
briefed that motion. ECF Nos. 38, 40, 45. Additionally, Plaintiff’s amended complaint was
never before this Court because it was not accepted for filing. 9/27/2019 Docket Entry (“The
filing is deficient for the following reason(s): Court’s leave has not been granted.”). Plaintiff
failed to refile her amended complaint, cure the stated deficiency, or object to the rejection of her
amended complaint. See generally ECF Nos. 41–46. Nor did she raise her deficient pleading in
her opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. See Pl. Mem. in. Opp’n, ECF No. 40.
Therefore, her deficient pleading was not and is not properly before this Court. See Wilmington
Sav. Fund Soc’y, FSB v. Thomson, No. 18 Civ. 3107, 2020 WL 4350579, at *1, *3 (S.D.N.Y.
July 29, 2020) (failing to consider a deficiently-filed pleading and ordering the plaintiff to refile
it); Sterling v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. as Tr. for Femit Tr. 2006-FF6, Mortg. Pass Through
Certificates, Series 2006-F6, No. 19 Civ. 205, 2019 WL 4199976, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2019)
(“[B]y neglecting to cure their filing deficiencies and properly submit their motion to dismiss by
the court-imposed February 8 deadline, Defendants failed to timely file their motion.”).
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is
DENIED.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 48. By January 22,
2021, Plaintiff shall file her amended complaint.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 8, 2021
New York, New York

1

On February 5, 2018, Plaintiff brought an action raising a variety of federal and state claims arising from a contract
dispute between her and Defendant. Kairam v. West Side GI LLC, No. 18 Civ. 1005 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2018), ECF
No. 1.

2