Ifedigbo v. Buffalo Public Schools

Filing 38

DECISION AND ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 30 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by United States District Judge William M. Skretny on 6/10/2018. (JCM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
OBI IFEDIGBO,
Plaintiff,
v.

DECISION AND ORDER
13-CV-637S

BUFFALO PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
JOSEPH GIUSIANA, and
OLIVIA LICATA,
Defendants.

1.

In this action, Plaintiff Obi Ifedigbo alleged that his employer, Defendant

Buffalo Public Schools (“BPS”), and two BPS employees discriminated against him based
on his race and violated his due process rights, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and
1985. On March 12, 2018, this Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
on each of Ifedigbo’s claims. See Ifedigbo v. Buffalo Pub. Schs., 13-CV-637S, 2018 WL
1256197 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2018.) The Clerk of Court entered judgment in Defendants’
favor the next day. (Docket No. 29.)
2.

On March 30, 2018, Ifedigbo timely filed a motion for reconsideration under

Rule 59 (e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Docket Nos. 30, 36.) Defendants
oppose the motion. (Docket No. 34.) For the following reasons, Ifedigbo’s motion is
denied.
3.

A district judge may modify pre-trial rulings and interlocutory orders at any

time prior to final judgment. See In re United States, 733 F.2d 10, 13 (2d Cir. 1984).
Reconsideration of a prior decision is generally justified in any one of the following three
1

circumstances: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) new evidence; or (3) the
need to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice. See Virgin Atl.
Airways, Ltd. v. Nat=l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992); see also
Amerisure Ins. Co. v. Laserage Tech. Corp., No. 96-CV-6313, 1998 WL 310750, *1
(W.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 1998) (citing United States v. Adegbite, 877 F.2d 174, 178 (2d Cir.
1989)).
4.

The decision whether to grant or deny a motion to reconsider lies in this

Court’s discretion. See McCarthy v. Manson, 714 F.2d 234, 237 (2d Cir. 1983). Parties
bringing motions to reconsider Ashould evaluate whether what may seem to be a clear
error of law is in fact simply a point of disagreement between the Court and the litigant.@
Duane v. Spaulding and Rogers Mfg. Inc., No. 92-CV-305, 1994 WL 494651, *1 (N.D.N.Y.
Aug. 10, 1994) (quoting McDowell Oil Serv. v. Interstate Fire and Cas., 817 F. Supp. 538,
541 (M.D.Pa. 1993)). Motions for reconsideration are not to be used as a means to
reargue matters already disposed of by prior rulings or to put forward additional
arguments that could have been raised before the decision. See Duane, 1994 WL
494651 at *1. After all, a Amotion for reconsideration is not a device intended to give an
unhappy litigant one additional chance to sway the judge.@ Nossek v. Bd. of Ed. of
Duanesburg Cent. Sch. Dist., No. 94-CV-219, 1994 WL 688298, *1 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 10,
1994).
5.

Upon consideration of Ifedigbo’s motion, this Court is not convinced that its

prior decision must be revisited.

Ifedigbo requests reconsideration of this Court’s

decision granting Defendants summary judgment, but he does not persuasively allege
2

any of the three circumstances under which reconsideration may be warranted. See
Virgin Atl. Airways, 956 F.2d at 1255. Instead, Ifedigbo simply reargues and rehashes
the same points he made in opposition to Defendants’ motion. These arguments have
already been raised, considered, and rejected. See Ifedigbo, 2018 WL 1256197, at *117.
6.

Ifedigbo is obviously dissatisfied with this Court’s decision, but use of a

motion to reconsider as a vehicle to reargue a case is improper. See Nossek, 1994 WL
688298, at *1; United States v. Chiochvili, 103 F. Supp. 2d 526, 530-31 (N.D.N.Y. 2000)
(reargument is not a proper basis for a motion to reconsider); Schonberger, 742 F. Supp.
at 119 (Athe provision for reargument is not designed to allow wasteful repetition of
arguments already briefed, considered and decided@). Accordingly, reconsideration is
denied.
7.

Rule 59 (e) allows for reconsideration to alter or amend a judgment upon

motion filed no later than 28 days after its entry. AThe standard for granting such a
motion 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). Relief can also be granted to
Acorrect a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.@ Int=l Ore & Fertilizer Corp. v. SGS
Control Servs., Inc., 38 F.3d 1279, 1287 (2d Cir. 1994) (quoting Virgin Atl., 956 F.2d at
1255). The existence of new evidence may also justify reconsideration. See Virgin Atl.,
956 F.2d at 1255.
3

8.

The rule is not, however, Aa 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.=@ Sequa Corp. v. GBJ Corp., 156 F.3d 136, 144 (2d Cir. 1998).
Nor is it “an opportunity for a party to ‘plug[ ] the gaps of a lost motion with additional
matters.’” Cruz v. Barnhart, No. 04 Civ. 9794 (DLC), 2006 WL 547681, at *1 (S.D.N.Y.
Mar. 7, 2006) (quoting Carolco Pictures Inc. v. Sirota, 700 F. Supp. 169, 170 (S.D.N.Y.
1988)). The decision to grant a Rule 59 (e) motion falls within the sound discretion of
the court. New York v. Holiday Inns, Inc., No. 83-CV-564S, 1993 WL 30933, at *4
(W.D.N.Y. 1993). Nonetheless, relief under Rule 59 (e) “is an extraordinary remedy to
be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial
resources.” Universal Trading & Inv. Co. v. Tymoshenko, No. 11 Civ. 7877 (PAC), 2013
WL 1500430, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2013) (citing Parrish v. Sollecito, 253 F. Supp. 2d
713, 715 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)).
9.

Here, although Ifedigbo’s Rule 59 motion is timely, he simply seeks to

relitigate his unsuccessful positions. Ifedigbo is certainly entitled to raise his alleged
errors on appeal, but for purposes of Rule 59, he has not demonstrated that this Court
overlooked material matters or that this Court’s decision contains clear error or constitutes
a manifest injustice. For these reasons, Ifedigbo=s motion under Rule 59 is denied.

4

IT HEREBY IS ORDERED, that Plaintiff=s Motion for Reconsideration (Docket No.
30) is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2018
Buffalo, New York
s/William M. Skretny
WILLIAM M. SKRETNY
United States District Judge

5