United States District Court, S.D. New York
Attorneys for Plaintiff THE ROTH LAW FIRM, PLLC By: Richard
A. Roth, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendant NEIMAN & MAIRANZ P.C., By: Marvin
W. SWEET U.S.D.J.
Marc Lazar, Inc. ("MLI" or "Defendant")
has moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)
and Local Civil Rule 6.3, to reconsider and amend the
Judgment entered on August 30, 2017 (the "Judgment,
" Dkt. No. 199), rendered in favor of Plaintiff Georgy
Usov ("Usov" or the "Plaintiff") for $5,
134, 672.16. As set forth below, Defendant's motion to
reconsider is granted. Upon reconsideration, Defendant's
motion to amend the Judgment is denied.
factual background and procedural history of this litigation
is detailed in prior Opinions the Court, familiarity with
which is assumed. See Usov v. Marc Lazar, Inc., No.
13 Civ. 818 (RWS), 2017 WL 3433606 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2017).
11, 2017, Defendant moved for reconsideration on the
Court's Judgment. The motion was taken on submission and
marked fully submitted on October 11, 2017.
Local Rule 6.3, a party moving for reconsideration "must
demonstrate that the Court overlooked controlling decisions
or factual matters that were put before it on the underlying
motion." Eisenmann v. Greene, 204 F.3d 393, 395
n.2 (2d Cir. 2000) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
"The major grounds justifying reconsideration are an
intervening change of controlling law, the availability of
new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent
manifest injustice." Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v.
Nat'l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir.
1992) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
standard for granting such a motion is "strict" and
should only be done when the movant "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). "Such motions are not vehicles for taking a
second bite at the apple, " Rafter v. Liddle,
288 Fed.Appx. 768, 769 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted), and "should not be granted
where the moving party seeks solely to relitigate an issue
already decided, " Shrader, 70 F.3d at 257.
under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) are governed by the same legal
standards as those under Local Rule 6.3. NEM Re
Receivables, LLC v. Fortress Re, Inc., 187 F.Supp.3d
390, 394 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).
Motion to Reconsider is Granted
contends that in the Court's August 10, 2017, opinion on
liability (the "August 10 Opinion"), several
factual matters were overlooked. Specifically, Defendant
identifies an inventory stone list dated December 31, 2008,
that details certain diamonds at issue between the parties,
and an email between Defendant and a director at Mervia,
David Dawes ("Dawes"), discussing the diamonds.
See (Defs.' Exs. BB & NN) . Exhibits BB and
NN were produced in discovery and admitted at trial.
Exhibit BB was not expressly discussed in the August 10
Opinion nor the Judgment, it can be deemed to have been
overlooked. Given the limited number of inventory
lists presented at trial, such evidence could
"reasonably be expected to affect the outcome" of
the Judgment. Stoner v. N.Y.C. Ballet Co., No. 99
Civ. 196 (BSJ), 2002 WL 523270, at *10 ...