Law et al v. Estee Lauder Inc. et al
Filing
78
ORDER denying #76 Motion for Reconsideration re #76 MOTION for Reconsideration re; #67 Order on Motion to Dismiss, . filed by Estee Lauder, Inc., Estee Lauder Inc. Fiduciary Investment Committee, Board of Directors Estee Lauder Inc. Defendants' motion is DENIED. See, e.g., Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012) ("It is well-settled that [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. Rather, 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." (cleaned up)). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 76. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 7/26/21) (yv)
Case 1:20-cv-04770-JMF Document 78 Filed 07/26/21 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
MICHELLE BILELLO et al.,
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
-v:
:
ESTEE LAUDER, INC. et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
20-CV-4770 (JMF)
ORDER
JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge:
On June 7, 2021, the Court issued an Order denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss, for
reasons that the Court explained on the record at a teleconference on July 8, 2021. See ECF No.
67. On July 22, 2021, Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of that Order, arguing that
the Supreme Court’s recent decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021),
requires dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims with respect to funds in which they did not personally
invest. See ECF Nos. 76, 77. The Court is unpersuaded, substantially for the reasons articulated
during the July 8th conference. In Ramirez, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the well-established
proposition that a plaintiff who has suffered no “concrete harm” lacks Article III standing. 141
S. Ct. at 2200. By contrast, “[i]f a defendant has caused physical or monetary injury to the
plaintiff, the plaintiff has suffered a concrete injury in fact under Article III.” Id. at 2204
(emphasis added). Here, there is no question that Plaintiffs allege a concrete injury-in-fact given
their allegations that they lost money as a result of Defendants’ mismanagement of the definedcontribution retirement plan in which they invested. See, e.g., ECF No. 13 (“Am. Compl.”),
¶¶ 22, 142. Put simply, Ramirez does not speak to the issue decided by this Court in its oral
Case 1:20-cv-04770-JMF Document 78 Filed 07/26/21 Page 2 of 2
ruling: whether Plaintiffs, having alleged an injury-in-fact, may bring claims for mismanagement
of the plan as a whole or merely of the funds within the plan in which they invested.
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is DENIED. See, e.g., Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga
Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012) (“It is well-settled that [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.
Rather, 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.” (cleaned up)).
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 76.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 26, 2021
New York, New York
__________________________________
JESSE M. FURMAN
United States District Judge
2
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?