United States District Court, S.D. New York
April 13, 2004.
CHARLES JAMES, Plaintiff, -against- U.S., Defendant
The opinion of the court was delivered by: HENRY PITMAN, Magistrate Judge
By notice of motion dated February 27, 2004 (Docket Item 66)
plaintiff moves for reconsideration of my Memorandum Opinion and Order
dated September 17, 2003 which denied plaintiff's motion to amend both
his notice of claim and his complaint and denied plaintiff's motion to
compel production of certain documents. For the reasons set forth below,
the motion is denied.
Motions for reconsideration are appropriate only in limited
Motions for reargument "are granted when new
facts come to light or when it appears that
controlling precedents were overlooked."
Weissman v. Fruchtman, 658 F. Supp. 547
(S.D.N.Y. 1987). The proponent of such a motion is
not supposed to treat the court's initial decision
as the opening of a dialogue in which that party
may then use [Local Civil Rule 6.3] to advance new
facts and theories in response to the court's
rulings. The purpose of the rule is "to ensure the
finality of decisions and to prevent the practice
of a losing party examining a decision and then
plugging the gaps of a lost motion with additional
matters." Lewis v. New York Telephone,
No. 83 Civ. 7129, slip op. at 2, 1986 WL 1441 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) cited
in Carolco. Pictures Inc. v. Sirota,
700 F. Supp. 169 (S.D.N.Y. 1988).
McMahan & Co. v. Donaldson. Lufkin &
Jenrette-Securities Corp., 727 F. Supp. 833, 833 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).
"[T]o be entitled to reargument under Local [Civil Rule 6.3], [a party]
must demonstrate that the Court overlooked controlling decisions or
factual matters that were put before the Court on the underlying motion."
American Alliance Ins. Co. v. Eagle Ins. Co., 163 F.R.D. 211,
213 (S.D.N.Y. 1995), rev'd on other
grounds, 92 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 1996), citing Ameritrust Co., N.A.
v. Dew, 151 F.R.D. 237, 238 (S.D.N.Y. 1993); Fulani v.
Brady. 149 F.R.D. 501, 503 (S.D.N.Y. 1993), aff'd
sub nom., Fulani v. Bentsen, 35 F.3d 49 (2d
Cir. 1994); East Coast Novelty Co. v. City of New York.
141 F.R.D. 245, 245 (S.D.N.Y. 1992); B.N.E. Swedbank, S.A. v.
Banker. 791 F. Supp. 1002, 1008 (S.D.N.Y. 1992); Novak v.
National Broad. Co., 760 F. Supp. 47, 48 (S.D.N.Y. 1991);
Ashley Meadows Farm. Inc. v. American Horse Shows Ass'n,
624 F. Supp. 856, 858 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). Thus, "a party in its motion for
reargument `may not advance new facts, issues or arguments not previously
presented to the court.'" In re Integrated Resources Real Estate
Limited Partnerships Sec. Litig., 850 F. Supp. 1105, 1151 (S.D.N.Y.
1994), quoting Litton Indus., Inc. v. Lehman Bros. Kuhn Loeb.
Inc., No. 86 Civ. 6447 (JMC), 1989 WL 162315 at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug.
4, 1989), rev'd on other grounds. 967 F.2d 742 (2d Cir. 1992).
Accord Caribbean Trading & Fidelity Corp. v. Nigerian Nat'l
Petroleum Corp., 948 F.2d 111, 115 (2d Cir. 1991). See also Woodard v.
Hardenfelder, 845 F. Supp. 960, 966 (E.D.N.Y. 1994). Motions for
reargument should not be used to permit a party "to reargue those issues
already considered when a party does not like the way the original motion
was resolved." In re Houbigant, Inc., 914 F. Supp. 997, 1001
Plaintiff cites no controlling facts or controlling legal principles
that were called to my attention and overlooked in connection with his
initial motions. Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to meet the stringent
standard that would support a motion for reconsideration.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.