United States District Court, N.D. New York
JOSHUA S MOSKOVITZ, ESQ., for Plaintiff.
LAURA A. HARSHBARGER, ESQ., for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER
ANDREW T. BAXTER, Magistrate Judge.
Presently before the court is plaintiff's motion for partial reconsideration of this court's November 24, 2014 Memorandum Decision and Order (Dkt. No. 42), which granted in part and denied in part, defendants' motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. (Dkt. No. 43). Defendants have responded in opposition to plaintiff's motion, and plaintiff has filed a reply. (Dkt. Nos. 48, 49, 50). For the following reasons, this court denies plaintiff's motion for partial reconsideration.
A summary of the complaint and the facts relevant to the defendants' motion for partial judgment on the pleadings are contained in my November 24, 2014 Memorandum Decision and Order, familiarity with which is assumed. I will discuss any facts relevant to this motion for reconsideration as necessary for clarity.
B. Procedural History of the Motion for Partial Reconsideration
On July 21, 2014, the defendants filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings before the Honorable Glenn T. Suddaby. (Dkt. No. 21). On September 30, 2014, Judge Suddaby referred the motion to me on consent of the parties. (Dkt. No. 38 & Text Order). Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's section 1983; false imprisonment; contract; conspiracy; negligence; and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. Defendants also moved to dismiss various individual defendants, including Christina Khan, the Assistant Dean and Director of International Student Services; Daniel Tucker and Stephen Cook, Campus Security Officers; Jeffrey Herbst, the President of Colgate University ("CU"); and John Doe, Attorney.
On November 24, 2014, I issued a Memorandum Decision and Order, granting defendants' motion in part, and denying the motion in part. (Dkt. No. 42). I ordered dismissal of the section 1983; contract; conspiracy; negligence; and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. I also dismissed the action as against the individual moving defendants: Khan, Tucker, Cook, Herbst, and John Doe.
On December 8, 2014, plaintiff made a motion for reconsideration of part of my decision. (Dkt. No. 43). Plaintiff asks this court to reconsider its decision, dismissing the contract claim as well as its decision to grant dismissal of the entire complaint as against defendant Khan. Plaintiff argues that in dismissing these claims, the court "overlooked critical allegations and arguments." (Dkt. No. 43-1 at 4) (Pl.'s Mem. of Law). Defendants oppose this motion, arguing that the court should not reconsider its decision. (Dkt. No. 48). For the following reasons, this court will deny plaintiff's motion.
A. Legal Standards
The standard for reconsideration is strict, and a motion for reconsideration will be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or facts that the court "overlooked" and that might "reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court." Shrader v. CSX Transp. Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). Clearly, if the standard requires the factual matters to have been overlooked, they must have been before the court in the underlying motion. See Eismann v. Greene, 204 F.3d 393, 395 n.2 (2d Cir. 2000). The prevailing law in the Northern District of New York recognizes that a motion for reconsideration may be granted in three situations: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the ...