UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
September 14, 2006
J. DANIEL LUGOSCH, III; ROBERT L. UNGERER; JOHN A. BERSANI; EDWARD A. KELLOGG; JOHN C. CHARTERS; PETER C. STEINGRABER; RICHARD K. ASKIN; AND WILLIAM TAPELLA, PLAINTIFFS,
ROBERT J. CONGEL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS GENERAL PARTNER OF WOODCHUCK HILL ASSOCIATES, RIESLING ASSOCIATES, MADEIRA ASSOCIATES, AND MOSELLE ASSOCIATES; PYRAMID COMPANY OF ONONDAGA; EKLECCO L.L.C.; JAMES A. TUOZZOLO; ROBERT BRVENIK; MARC A. MALFITANO; WOODCHUCK HILL ASSOCIATES; RIESLING ASSOCIATES; MADEIRA ASSOCIATES; MOSELLE ASSOCIATES; AND SCOTT R. CONGEL. DEFENDANTS.
IN RE THE HERALD COMPANY AND CAPITAL NEWSPAPERS DIVISION OF THE HEARST CORPORATION, INTERVENORS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Norman A. Mordue, Chief U.S. District Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Defendants move (Dkt. No. 495) for reconsideration of so much of the Court's Memorandum-Decision and Order dated March 31, 2006 (Dkt. No. 482) as denied summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a) with respect to S&R and denied summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) with respect to all defendants. Defendants contend that reconsideration is warranted by the decision by the United States Supreme Court in Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp. , __U.S. __, 126 S.Ct. 1991 (2006), reversing the Second Circuit's decision in Ideal Steel Supply Corp. v. Anza , 373 F.3d 251 (2d Cir. 2004). Plaintiffs oppose the motion (Dkt. No. 508).
The Supreme Court decided Anza on June 5, 2006. On July 9, 2006, the case at bar was deemed trial ready. The docket reflects communications among the Court and counsel throughout the rest of the month of June regarding a trial date and a schedule for pretrial submissions. Under the circumstances in this case, defendants' motion, filed July 31, 2006 -- 56 days after the Anza decision and 33 days after the final trial date was set -- was not made within a reasonable time as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Reconsideration is denied on the ground of untimeliness.
In any event, even if the Court were to address the merits of the motion, it would deny reconsideration. In its March 31, 2006 Memorandum-Decision and Order, this Court did not rely on the reasoning of the Second Circuit in Anza .*fn1 Nor does the Supreme Court's decision in Anza and its discussion of Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corp. , 503 U.S. 258 (1992), materially alter the law as applied by this Court in the instant case. This Court expressly applied the Holmes standard in requiring record evidence of "a direct relation between the injury asserted and the injurious conduct alleged." While the Court might have worded its discussion somewhat differently if it had had the benefit of the Anza decision, this Court's essential findings, analysis, and holding are not affected by Anza . Nothing in the Supreme Court's Anza decision constitutes an intervening change in controlling law warranting reconsideration.
It is therefore
ORDERED that the defendants' motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 485) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.