United States District Court, S.D. New York
October 3, 2005.
AGFA GEVAERT AG, AGFA CORPORATION, and FORTIS INSURANCE COMPANY, N.V., Plaintiffs,
TMM LINES LIMITED, LLC, CP SHIPS, and HAPAG-LLOYD CONTAINER LINE GmbH, Defendants. ALLIANZ MARINE & AVIATION (FRANCE), a/s/o RHOVYL, S.A., Plaintiff, v. LYKES LINES LIMITED, L.L.C. and MAERSK NORFOLK, her engines, tackle, boilers, etc., in rem, Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: JOHN KEENAN, Senior District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
Defendants have filed motions for reconsideration and
reargument of the Court's August 25, 2005 Opinion and Order
denying summary judgment to both sides. Familiarity with the
facts of this case is assumed. For the following reasons, the
Court denies Defendants' motions.
Local Civil Rule 6.3 permits reconsideration motions so that
the parties may bring to the Court's attention "matters or
controlling opinions which counsel believes the court has
overlooked." Rule 6.3 is strictly construed in order to spare the
Court the time-wasting task of considering repetitive arguments on decided issues. See, e.g., Dietrich v. Bauer,
76 F. Supp. 2d 312, 327 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).
Defendants CP Ships, TMM Lines Limited, LLC, and Lykes Lines
Limited LLC (collectively the "CP Defendants") and Hapag-Lloyd
Container Line GmbH ("Hapag") have filed separate briefs, but
their arguments are essentially the same and will be treated
together. Defendants contend that the number of "packages" for
the purposes of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act ("COGSA") was
35, not 563, and that "the Court overlooked the fact that those
35 packages are six cartons and 29 pallets." (CP Mem. at 1-2). To
the contrary, the Court treated this argument in full in the
August 25, 2005 Order, specifically on pages 7 and 14.
The CP Defendants attempt to present "additional evidence that
clarifies or resolves any apparent ambiguity about Agfa's
intent." (CP Mem. at 2-3). The Court considered all of the
evidence before it on the prior motion and concluded that there
was ambiguity concerning the number of packages for purposes of
the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act ("COGSA"). The CP Defendants
present no "additional evidence." They merely restate their
previous arguments while relying on the same declarations and
documents that the Court already has considered. Hapag,
contending that the Court "overlook[ed] the significance of
several factors substantiated by Plaintiffs [sic] AGFA's own
documents and records" (Hapag Mem. at 2), does the same. Finally, Defendants query the Court's determination on the
issue of quasi-deviation. Agfa's Transport Instruction states:
"CONTAINER UNBEDINGT UNTER DECK VERLADEN," which translates as
"UNCONDITIONALLY LOAD CONTAINER BELOW DECK." (Bathrellos Stmt. ¶
5). Representatives from the CP Defendants claim that such
requests are generally declined, but neither representative
remembers any objection from Agfa regarding the containers at
issue. (Schrauwen Decl. ¶ 2; Wouters Decl. ¶ 3). In other words,
the evidence at this stage does not conclusively show that Agfa's
demand in its Transport Instruction was accepted or declined. The
parties also continue to dispute whether the vessel had room for
storage below deck. As the Court stated at page 18 of its
previous order, there are "obvious factual disputes," and the
record does not warrant summary judgment on the quasi-deviation
Defendants set forth neither factual matters nor controlling
precedent that the Court overlooked in its August 25, 2005 Order.
The motions for reconsideration are denied.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.