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.

Vrazel v. Long Island Railroad Co.

United States District Court, E.D. New York

June 13, 2017

CHARLES VRAZEL, Plaintiff,
v.
LONG ISLAND RAILROAD COMPANY Defendant. LONG ISLAND RAILROAD COMPANY, Third Party Plaintiff,
v.
SCHEIDT & BACHMAN GMBH and SCHEIDT & BACHMAN USA, INC., Third Party Defendants.

          Law Offices of Michael D. Flynn Attorneys for the Plaintiff By: Valerie J. Lauriello, Esq., Of Counsel

          Karla R. Alston, Esq. Corporate Counsel for the Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff

          Sedgewick LLP Attorneys for the Third Party Defendants By: William J. Brennan, Esq., Of Counsel

          MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

          ARTHUR D. SPATT United States District Judge

         This case arises from allegations by the Plaintiff Charles Vrazel (the “Plaintiff” or “Vrazel”) that he suffered injuries because of the negligence of his employer, the Defendant Long Island Rail Road (the “Defendant, ” the “Third Party Plaintiff” or the “LIRR”), in violation of the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. § 51 (the “FELA”). The Defendant LIRR subsequently filed a third party complaint against the Third Party Defendants Scheidt & Bachman GmbH and Scheidt & Bachman USA, Inc. (collectively, the “Third Party Defendants” or “S&B”), alleging three causes of action sounding in contributory negligence, common law indemnification, and contractual indemnification.

         On November 8, 2016, the Court issued a memorandum of decision and order (the “Decision”) granting in part, and denying in part a motion for summary judgment by S&B pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 (“Fed. R. Civ. P.” or “Rule”) 56. Specifically, the Court dismissed LIRR's common law indemnification claim, but found that triable issues of fact existed as to LIRR's common law contribution and contractual indemnification claims.

         Presently before the Court is a motion by S&B pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.3 asking the Court to reconsider its Decision, and for clarification on the Court's ruling. For the following reasons, S&B's motion is granted in part, and denied in part.

         I. DISCUSSION

         A. The Relevant Legal Standard

         Local Civil Rule 6.3 provides that:

Unless otherwise provided by the Court or by statute or rule (such as Fed.R.Civ.P. 50, 52, and 59), a notice of motion for reconsideration or reargument of a court order determining a motion shall be served within fourteen (14) days after the entry of the Court's determination of the original motion, or in the case of a court order resulting in a judgment, within fourteen (14) days after the entry of the judgment. There shall be served with the notice of motion a memorandum setting forth concisely the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the Court has overlooked. The time periods for the service of answering and reply memoranda, if any, shall be governed by Local Civil Rule 6.1(a) or (b), as in the case of the original motion. No oral argument shall be heard unless the Court directs that the matter shall be reargued orally. No affidavits shall be filed by any party unless directed by the Court.

Id. “The standard for granting such a motion 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.” Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). The decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is “committed to the sound discretion of the district court.” Wilder v. News Corp., 2016 WL 5231819, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Liberty Media Corp. v. Vivendi Universal, S.A., 861 F.Supp.2d 262, 265 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)); see also Shrader, 70 F.3d at 257 (using an abuse of discretion standard to judge a district court's decision on a motion for reconsideration).

         “[A] party may not advance new facts, issues[, ] or arguments not previously presented to the Court on a motion for reconsideration.” Steinberg v. Elkman, 2016 WL 1604764, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Stroh Cos., 265 F.3d 97, 115 (2d Cir. 2001)). Nevertheless, reconsideration may be granted because of “an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Luv n' Care Ltd. v. Goldberg Cohen, LLP, 2016 WL 6820745, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 10, 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Hollander v. Members of the Bd. of Regents, 524 F. App'x 727, 729 (2d Cir. 2013) (summary order)); accord Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992) (citations omitted).

         B. ...


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.