Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Federal Treasury Enter. Sojuzplodoimport v. Spirits Int'l B.V.

United States District Court, S.D. New York

September 5, 2014

FEDERAL TREASURY ENTERPRISE SOJUZPLODOIMPORT and OAO " MOSCOW DISTILLERY CRISTALL,", Plaintiffs,
v.
SPIRITS INTERNATIONAL B.V., SPI SPIRITS LIMITED, SPI GROUP SA, YURI SHEFLER, ALEXEY OLIYNIK, ALLIED DOMECQ INTERNATIONAL HOLDING B.V., ALLIED DOMECQ SPIRITS & WINE USA, INC., WILLIAM GRANT & SONS USA, WILLIAM GRANT & SONS, INC., and STOLI GROUP (USA) LLC, Defendants

Decided: September 4, 2014.

Page 384

For Plaintiffs: Daniel H. Bromberg, Esq., Jones Day, Washington, DC; Jessica Anne Rose, Esq., Marc Laurence Greenwald, Esq., Robert Lloyd Raskopf, Esq., Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, New York, NY.

For Defendants: David M. Zionts, Esq., Covington & Burling, LLP, Washington, DC; Emily Johnson Henn, Esq., Covington & Burling, LLP, Redwood Shores, CA; Bingham B. Leverich, Esq., Eugene Gulland, Esq., Covington & Burling, LLP, Washington, DC; Hope Ivy Hamilton, Esq., Holland & Hart LLP, Boulder, CO; David H. Bernstein, Esq., Carl Micarelli, Esq., Michael Shaper, Esq., Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP, New York, NY; Edward T. Colbert, Esq., Kenyon & Kenyon LLP, Washington, DC.

Page 385

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Shira A. Scheindlin, United States District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

In an Opinion and Order on August 25, 2014 (" August 25 Order" ), I granted in part and denied in part Defendants' joint motion to dismiss.[1] Both FTE and Defendants now move for partial reconsideration of the August 25 Order.[2] In the alternative, Defendants request that the Court certify the res judicata issue for interlocutory appeal. For the following reasons, both motions are DENIED.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Motion for Reconsideration

" 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." [3] Reconsideration of a court's previous order is " an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources." [4] Typical grounds for reconsideration include " an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." [5]

B. Certification for Interlocutory Appeal

The decision whether to grant an interlocutory appeal lies within the district court's ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.