Servipronto De El Salvador, S.A. v. McDonald's Corporation
Filing
144
OPINION AND ORDER: Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Docket Entry #133. re: 133 MOTION for Reconsideration of the November 6, 2017 Order. filed by Servipronto De El Salvador, S.A. ' (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 1/5/2018) (js)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------X
:
SERVIPRONTO DE EL SALVADOR, S.A.,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
MCDONALD’S CORPORATION,
:
:
Defendant. :
:
------------------------------------------------------ X
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #: _________________
DATE FILED: ______________
January 5, 2018
11 Civ. 4519 (KPF)
OPINION AND ORDER
KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge:
On November 6, 2017, the Court issued an Order denying Plaintiff’s
motion to lift the stay in this case or to refer the case to mediation. (Dkt.
#132). On November 20, 2017, Plaintiff moved for reconsideration. (Dkt.
#133). After carefully reviewing the parties’ relevant submissions (Dkt.
#134-140, 143), the Court is unpersuaded that it overlooked any controlling
legal authority or facts that would alter its decision. The Court therefore
denies Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.
In this Circuit, motions for reconsideration are governed by a strict
standard: They are to 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).
Plaintiff has failed to identify any legal or factual issues overlooked by the
Court that would alter the Court’s conclusion. Plaintiff asserts that the Court
overlooked the “fact” that Judge Beltran Lopez has not withdrawn from the
proceedings in El Salvador and that the Second Civil Chamber in El Salvador
did not uphold a lower court’s decision on the merits. Yet, even if true, those
facts would not alter this Court’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s request to lift the
stay. Plaintiff similarly has not identified any controlling legal authority or
intervening change of law that the Court overlooked.
Nothing in Plaintiff’s submissions suggests to the Court that it must
reconsider its decision to maintain the stay in this case. Accordingly, the
Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. The Clerk of Court is
directed to terminate the motion pending at Docket Entry #133.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
January 5, 2018
New York, New York
__________________________________
KATHERINE POLK FAILLA
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?