United States District Court, S.D. New York
YATRAM INDERGIT, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
RITE AID CORPORATION, RITE AID OF NEW YORK, INC., and FRANK OFFOR as Aider & Abettor, Defendants
For Yatram Indergit, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff: Robert John Valli, Jr., Sara Wyn Kane, LEAD ATTORNEY, Aneeba Rehman, James Vagnini, Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP, Garden City, NY; Deven Hahn, Dinovo Price Ellwanger LLP, Austin, TX; Jay D. Ellwanger, PRO HAC VICE, DiNovo Price Ellwanger and Hardy LLP, Austin, TX.
For Rite Aid Corporation, Defendant: Beth A. Moeller, Daniel E. Turner, PRO HAC VICE, Ashe, Rafuse & Hill, LLP, Atlanta, GA; Bonnie Catherine Puckett, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak, & Hill, LLP, Atlanta, GA; Brian P. Downey, PRO HAC VICE, Pepper, Hamilton, L.L.P., Harrisburg, PA; Elizabeth A. Falcone, Justin M. Scott, Kristy Offitt, Lauren House Zeldin, Leah C. Lively, Margaret H. Campbell, Tracey T. Barbaree, PRO HAC VICE, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Atlanta, GA; Patrick G. Brady, Suzanne Kathleen Brown, Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. (NJ), Newark, NJ; Raphael Cunniff, PRO HAC VICE, Tracey Elizabeth Diamond, Pepper Hamilton ,LLP(Phil), Philadelphia, PA.
For Rite Aid of New York, Inc., Defendant: Daniel E. Turner, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Ashe, Rafuse & Hill, LLP, Atlanta, GA; Bonnie Catherine Puckett, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak, & Hill, LLP, Atlanta, GA; Elizabeth A. Falcone, Leah C. Lively, PRO HAC VICE, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Portland, OR; Kristy Offitt, Lauren House Zeldin, PRO HAC VICE, Ogletree, Dearkins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Atlanta, GA; Margaret H. Campbell, PRO HAC VICE, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Atlanta, GA; Patrick G. Brady, Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. (NJ), Newark, NJ.
For Francis Offor, Aider & Abettor, Defendant: Keith Alan Raven, LEAD ATTORNEY, Raven & Kolbe, LLP, New York, NY.
OPINION AND ORDER
J. PAUL OETKEN, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Yatram Indergit, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, asserts claims against Rite Aid Corporation, Rite Aid of New York, Inc., and Frank Offor (collectively, " Rite Aid" ) for failure to compensate its store managers (" SMs" ) for overtime hours in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § § 201 et seq. (" FLSA" ) and the New York Labor Law § § 650 et seq. (" NYLL" ). In an Opinion and Order dated September 26, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to certify a Rule 23 NYLL class as to liability but not as to damages, and denied Rite Aid's motion to decertify the FLSA collective action. Indergit v. Rite Aid Corp., 293 F.R.D. 632 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). Rite Aid has moved for reconsideration of tat Order pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.3. For the reasons that follow, the motion is denied.
I. Legal Standard
" A motion for reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources." Drapkin v. Mafco Consol. Grp., Inc., 818 F.Supp.2d 678, 695 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (citation and quotations omitted). To prevail, the movant must demonstrate either (i) an intervening change in controlling law; (ii) the availability of new evidence; or (iii) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Jacob v. Duane Reade, Inc., 293 F.R.D. 578, 580-81 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citation omitted). A motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity " to obtain a second bite at the apple." Goonan v. Fed. Reserve Bank of N.Y., No. 12 Civ. 3859 (JPO), 2013 WL 1386933, *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2013) (citation omitted). Thus, the movant cannot rely upon facts, issues, or arguments that were previously available but not presented to the court, or reargue issues that have already been considered. See Hayles v. Adv. Travel Mgmt. Corp.,
01 Civ. 0017 (BSJ), 2004 WL 117597, *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2004).
Familiarity with the underlying facts of this case, which are set forth in the Court's prior opinions, is presumed. In its September 26, 2013 Opinion and Order (" Order" ), the Court determined that Plaintiffs had satisfied the requirements of Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) and demonstrated that the opt-in class members are " similarly situated" to warrant collective action treatment. Rite Aid moved for reconsideration of the Order on October 11, 2013 on three grounds. (Dkt. No. 245.) First, it asserts that the Court should decertify the damages portion of the FLSA collective action to prevent manifest injustice. Second, it argues that it was clear error for the Court to conduct and rely upon its own survey of deposition testimony. Third, it asks the Court to hold the instant ...