United States District Court, S.D. New York
For Plaintiff: Gerald Orseck, Esq., Orseck Law Offices, Liberty, New York.
For Defendant: Gary D. Silver, Esq., Stoloff & Silver, LLP, Monticello, New York.
OPINION AND ORDER
KENNETH M. KARAS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
" Inveterate UCC geek[s]" are advised to draw near: On Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, the Court must revisit this " classic" Article 9 case. Tim Zinnecker, You Had Me at " UCC" , The Faculty Lounge (Apr. 1, 2013, 10:16 a.m.), http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2013/04/you-had-me-at-ucc.html.
Plaintiff and Defendant each claim to possess a superior interest in two truck chassis. Plaintiff is the consignor of the chassis; Defendant provided surety bonds to two Fire Districts that purchased the chassis. In a previous Opinion and Order dated December 18, 2012, the Court found
that the Fire Districts qualified as buyers in the ordinary course under the Uniform Commercial Code (" the UCC" ), which governed this dispute; that Defendant could assert the Districts' interests in the chassis; and that Defendant's interest in the chassis was superior to Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 51.) Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court's Order.
Plaintiff's Motion is denied. First, this is the paradigmatic case that the strict rules governing motions for reconsideration were written to prevent: Plaintiff had both a pre-argument and, over Defendant's objections, a post-argument opportunity to brief the factual and legal issues that Plaintiff raises in its instant Motion for Reconsideration. See Schuster v. Dragone Classic Motor Cars, No. 99-CV-2000, 2000 WL 1585685, at *2 (Oct. 25, 2000) (denying plaintiff's request for attorney's fees, where plaintiff had an initial opportunity to establish fees but " did not take advantage of it" ; where the Court " permitted [plaintiff] to remedy that failure" but his response was " neither timely nor sufficient" ; and where Plaintiff sought " a third bite at the apple . . . in a manner directly proscribed by the rules of this Court" ). Second, for reasons that the Court will explain, Plaintiff's arguments are substantively without merit.
The Court assumes the Parties' familiarity with the factual and procedural history of this case, as described in Arthur Glick Truck Sales v. Stuphen East Corp., 914 F.Supp.2d 529 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). The Court will summarize the relevant history here only briefly. Plaintiff was an ongoing consignor of fire truck chassis to Wolverine Fire Apparatus Company (" Wolverine" ), which built completed fire trucks on the chassis and then sold them to fire districts. This dispute arises from contracts that Wolverine entered into with the Beaverkill Valley Fire District and the Forest Waverly Fire Department (" the Fire Districts" )--each for the sale of a completed fire truck. Defendant provided surety bonds to the Fire Districts guaranteeing Wolverine's performance. Wolverine ordered chassis for the trucks from Plaintiff. Wolverine began construction, but went into bankruptcy prior to completing the fire trucks. The Fire Districts filed claims on their respective surety bonds against Defendant; Defendant acquired the fire chassis from Wolverine's bankruptcy estate; Defendant arranged for completion of the fire trucks by other providers; and Defendant ultimately arranged for delivery of the completed fire trucks to the Fire Districts. Plaintiff, which was to receive payment from Wolverine following the completed sale of the fire trucks to the Fire Districts, seeks damages from Defendant for the value of the two truck chassis, for which Plaintiff has never been paid. In an Opinion and Order dated December 18, 2012, the Court granted Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment against Plaintiff, finding that Defendant's interest in the chassis was superior to Plaintiff's. See Glick, 914 F.Supp.2d at 532. Plaintiff filed a timely Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's grant of summary judgment.
A. Standard of Review
" Motions for reconsideration are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3, which are meant 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." Pla v. Renaissance Equity Holdings LLC, No. 12-CV-5268, 2013 WL 3185560, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2013) (internal quotation ...