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.

Schoolcraft v. City of New York

United States District Court, S.D. New York

March 30, 2017

ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT, Plaintiff,
v.
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants.

          Attorneys for Plaintiff NATHANIEL B. SMITH, ESQ. JOHN LENOIR, ESQ.

          Attorneys for Defendants NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT By: Alan H. Scheiner, Esq.

          OPINION

          ROBERT W. SWEET U.S.D.J.

         The plaintiff Adrian Schoolcraft ("Schoolcraft" or the "Plaintiff") has moved pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.3 and Rules 59(e), 54(b), and 60(b), Fed R. Civ. P., for reconsideration of certain portions of the September 6, 2016 order awarding the Plaintiff $1, 093, 658.04 for attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements in this civil rights action against The City of New York, certain of its officers and employees (the "City"), Jamaica Hospital Center, and certain of its employees (collectively, the "Defendants"). Based upon the conclusions set forth below, the motion for reconsideration is granted, and upon reconsideration, the 35% reduction of attorneys' fees is modified to a 25% reduction.

         I. Prior Proceedings

         The September 6, 2016 order (the "September 2016 Order") described the prior proceedings. See Schoolcraft v. City of N.Y., No. 10 CIV. 6005 (RWS), 2016 WL 4626568, at *l-2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 2016). Familiarity with the prior proceedings and facts is assumed.

         The instant motions were marked fully submitted on November 17, 2016.

         II. The Applicable Standard

         A motion for reconsideration is properly granted where "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." Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995); see also Farez-Espinoza v. Napolitano, 08 Civ. 11060 (HB), 2009 WL 1118098, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2009). Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.3, the Court may reconsider a prior decision to "correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Medisim Ltd. v. BestMed LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56800, at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2012) (citing RST (2005) Inc. v. Research in Motion Ltd., 597 F.Supp.2d 362, 364-65 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)).

         Reconsideration of a court's prior order under Local Rule 6.3 "is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources." Ferring B.V. v. Allergan, Inc., No. 12 Civ. 2650 (RWS), 2013 WL 4082930, 2013 WL 4082930, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 2013) (quoting Sikhs for Justice v. Nath, 893 F.Supp.2d 598, 605 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)). Accordingly, the standard of review applicable to such a motion is "strict." CSX, 70 F.3d at 257.

         The burden is on the movant to demonstrate that the Court overlooked controlling decisions or material facts that were before it on the original motion and that might "materially have influenced its earlier decision." Anglo Am. Ins. Group v. CalFed, Inc., 940 F.Supp. 554, 557 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A party seeking reconsideration may neither repeat "arguments already briefed, considered and decided" nor "advance new facts, issues or arguments not previously presented to the Court." Schonberger v. Serchuk, 7 42 F.Supp. 108, 119 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (citations omitted).

         "The reason for the rule confining reconsideration to matters that were 'overlooked' is 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." Polsby v. St. Martin's Press, Inc., No. 97 Civ. 690 (MBM), 2000 WL 98057, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2000) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

         III. The Motion to Reconsider is Granted

         Plaintiff's counsel Nathaniel B. Smith, Esq., ("Smith") noted that the City had taken the position in its initial opposition to the application that $450 was a reasonable rate for Smith. See City Memorandum of Law in Opposition, Docket Entry 661 ("City's Opp'n") at 15. The City also urged the adoption of a $400 hourly rate for Plaintiff's counsel Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq. ("Norinsberg"). Given the resolution of this action by the Offer of Judgment including reasonable counsel fees, these recommendations ...


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.