Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

SKYVIEW OWNERS CORP. v. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UN.

United States District Court, S.D. New York


October 19, 2004.

SKYVIEW OWNERS CORPORATION, Petitioner,
v.
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 32BJ, AFL-CIO, Respondent.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: SHIRA SCHEINDLIN, District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Skyview Owners Corporation ("Skyview"), brought this action to vacate an arbitration award issued in a dispute between Skyview and Service Employees International Union, Local 32BJ, AFL-CIO ("the Union"). In an Opinion and Order dated October 5, 2004, the Court granted the Union's motion to dismiss. Skyview now moves for reconsideration of that Order. For the reasons set forth below, Skyview's motion for reconsideration is denied.

  II. BACKGROUND

  The dispute between Skyview and the Union, arising out of Skyview's termination of an employee represented by the Union, was arbitrated between September 12, 2003 and May 24, 2004. The Union was represented by Regina Faul of the law firm of Raab, Sturm & Goldman L.L.P. On May 24, the arbitrator, Ronald Betso, issued an award in favor of the Union. On June 14, 2004, Skyview sued to vacate the award. Skyview argued that the award should be vacated because of the arbitrator's undisclosed business relationship, as co-owner and director of a restaurant/bar, with a partner of Faul's firm. The Court determined that federal common law applied to this action, and that, under that law, Skyview's claim was meritless; consequently, the Court granted the Union's motion to dismiss this action.

  II. LEGAL STANDARD

  A motion for reconsideration is governed by Local Rule 6.3 and is appropriate where a court overlooks "controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before it on the underlying motion . . . and which, had they been considered, might have reasonably altered the result before the court."*fn1 Alternatively, a motion for reconsideration may be granted to "correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice."*fn2

  Local Rule 6.3 should be "narrowly construed and strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the Court."*fn3 A Local Rule 6.3 motion "is not a motion to reargue those issues already considered when a party does not like the way the original motion was resolved."*fn4 The purpose of Local Rule 6.3 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."*fn5

  III. DISCUSSION

  Skyview contends that the Court erred in applying federal common law, rather than New York arbitration law under C.P.L.R. § 7511. Skyview points to no new facts or controlling law that the Court overlooked in reaching its conclusion, and instead merely restates the arguments that the Court considered and rejected in reaching its decision. For this reason alone, Skyview's motion must be denied. Furthermore, even assuming, arguendo, that the issue should have been analyzed under C.P.L.R. § 7511, the result would have been the same. The alleged relationship is too tenuous and remote to require vacatur of an arbitral award, whether under C.P.L.R. § 7511 or federal common law.

  V. CONCLUSION

  For the foregoing reasons, Skyview's motion for reconsideration is denied. The Clerk is directed to close this motion [#17 on the docket sheet].

  SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.