United States District Court, S.D. New York
Attorneys for Plaintiff NATHANIEL B. SMITH, ESQ. JOHN LENOIR,
Attorneys for Defendants NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT By:
Alan H. Scheiner, Esq.
W. SWEET U.S.D.J.
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.
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.
instant motions were marked fully submitted on November 17,
The Applicable Standard
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
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.
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).
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).
The Motion to Reconsider is Granted
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 ...