STEVEN S. NOVICK, Plaintiff,
AXA NETWORK, LLC, and AXA ADVISORS, LLC, Defendants. AXA NETWORK, LLC, and: AXA ADVISORS, LLC, Counter Claimants,
STEVEN S. NOVICK, Counter Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
KEVIN NATHANIEL FOX, Magistrate Judge.
On September 24, 2013, the Court denied the plaintiff's motion to compel an "[a]ccounting demonstrating all revenue generated by Plaintiff while in Defendants' employ." (Docket Entry No. 199). Before the Court is the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of that order, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.3 of this court, which is opposed by the defendants. Plaintiff's Contentions
The plaintiff contends that: (1) the Court failed to "address the issue sought in the motion to compel an accounting, " namely "whether or not the purported accounting reflects Mr. Novick's contracted-for method of compensation"; and (2) contrary to the Court's decision, the plaintiff "demonstrated that the December spreadsheet is inaccurate." With respect to his first argument, the plaintiff contends:
Judge Hellerstein stated that, if Mr. Novick was able to show him that documents existed that showed he was to be paid in GDCs, i.e. the "macro" compensation, he was willing to consider changing his mind as to what was to be included in the accounting required of Defendants. In other words, the accounting as provided would be considered sufficient unless Plaintiff could demonstrate he was supposed to be paid in GDCs. Mr. Novick brought this motion to accomplish exactly that. As part of his motion, and reply, he attached numerous documents to demonstrate that he was to be paid in GDCs.... While it is true that in the original motion, Mr. Novick did not point to any specific transaction where he was not paid according to AXA's Field Bulletins, it is Mr. Novick's claim that, based upon the foregoing, he can point to every transaction as one where he was improperly compensated.
The plaintiff asserts that all the documents attached to his motion to compel "clearly demonstrate that Mr. Novick was to be paid in GDCs, and not PCs and POP." He maintains that the "Court should rule on the original purpose of Mr. Novick's Motion to compel an Accounting, and find that the criteria of the accounting previously provided are inadequate."
With respect to the plaintiff's second argument, the plaintiff contends that the defendants' "December spreadsheet is inaccurate, " and, contrary to the Court's finding that the "plaintiff failed to present any evidence to support his contention that the December 2011 spreadsheet figures are incorrect...[t]his is precisely what the Plaintiff demonstrated in the papers submitted to the Court." The plaintiff asserts:
Attached [as] Exhibit J to his reply to the prior motion are Plaintiff's 1099s and W2s for the time period 2002 through 2006, while he was affiliated with AXA. Considering that Mr. Novick began his affiliation with AXA in November 2002, and the December Spreadsheet does not contain data prior to April 4, 2003. [sic] The December spreadsheet is clearly incomplete and therefore, incorrect. As stated in Plaintiff's original reply, and re-stated herein, the total of Plaintiff's pay for the time period he was affiliated with AXA was $3, 073, 646.47. According to Defendants' December spreadsheet, ... Mr. Novick's "Net Pay" was $1, 384, 997.92. This fact alone demonstrates that the December spreadsheet is not accurate.
The defendants contend that the Court "squarely addressed the main point' of plaintiff's motion to compel an accounting, i.e., whether or not the accounting reflects plaintiff's alleged contracted-for method of compensation, " because, "[t[hroughout the Order, the Court recounts and evaluates the evidence and arguments submitted by both sides regarding GDCs, " and considered the exhibits submitted on the motion. Moreover, the Court did not overlook the "plaintiff's argument that he was supposed to be compensated by special arrangement not governed by AXA's schedule, " since the Court discussed the plaintiff's related contentions. Nor did the Court overlook the "plaintiff's argument that the December spreadsheet is purportedly inaccurate, " and the Court "should not countenance plaintiff's continued efforts... to reargue points and evidence that previously were submitted to the Court." According to the defendants, the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption that the Court considered the entire evidentiary record, and no reason exists to reconsider the order now.
Local Civil Rule 6.3 of this court provides for a motion for reconsideration or reargument, requiring the movant to set forth, in a memorandum of law, "concisely the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the Court has overlooked.... No affidavits shall be filed by any party unless directed by the Court." Local Civil Rule 6.3.
The standard for granting [a motion for reconsideration] is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked-matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.... Admittedly, a motion to reconsider should not be granted where the moving party seeks solely to relitigate an issue already decided.
Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc. , 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995).
"To be entitled to reargument under Local Rule [6.3, the movant] must demonstrate that the court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before the court on the underlying motion." Ashley Meadows Farm, Inc. v. Am. ...