United States District Court, E.D. New York
HOWARD A. DOMITZ, Plaintiff,
THE CITY OF LONG BEACH, Defendant.
OFFICES OF WAYNE J. SCHAEFER, LLC BY: Wayne J. Schaefer, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
M. AGOTISTI, CORPORATION COUNSEL, CITY OF LONG BEACH BY:
Richard A. Berrios, Esq., Assistant Corporation Counsel
Attorneys for Defendant
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
LEONARD D. WEXLER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Memorandum and Order dated June 16, 2017, the Court granted
Defendant's motion to dismiss, pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and dismissed Plaintiffs
discrimination claims under the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq.. with
prejudice. By that same Order, the Court declined to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law
discrimination claims, dismissing such claims without
prejudice. Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of the
Court's June 16, 2017 Memorandum and Order. For the
following reasons, Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration is
I. Legal Standard
for reconsideration in this district are governed by Local
Civil Rule 6.3 and are committed to the sound discretion of
the district court. See Hunt v. Enzo Biochem. Inc.,
No. 06 Civ. 170, 2007 WL 1346652, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 7,
2007). "Reconsideration is an 'extraordinary remedy
to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and
conservation of scarce judicial resources.'"
Id. at *1 (quoting In re Health Memt. Svs.. Inc.
Sec. Litig.. 113 F.Supp.2d 613, 614 (S.D.N.Y.2000)). For
this reason, Local Civil Rule 6.3 is "narrowly construed
and strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive arguments on
issues that have been considered fully by the court."
Dietrich v. Bauer. 76 F.Supp.2d 312, 317
prevail on a motion for [reconsideration], the movant
'must demonstrate that the Court overlooked controlling
decisions or factual matters that were put before it on the
underlying motion.'" Church of Scientology
Int'l v. Time Warner. Inc.. No. 92 Civ. 3024,
1997 WL 538912, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 1997) (quoting
Gill v. Gilder. No. 95 Civ. 7933, 1997 WL 419983, at
*2 (S.D.N.Y. July 28, 1997)). "A motion for
reconsideration is not a substitute for appeal... Nor is it
'a second bite at the apple for a party dissatisfied with
a court's ruling."' Hunt. 2007 WL 1346652, at *1
(quoting Pannonia Farms. Inc. v. USA Cable.
No. 03 Civ. 7841, 2004 WL 1794504, at *2 (S.D.N.Y.Aug. 10,
2004)). Accordingly, a party may not merely offer the same
arguments that were previously submitted to the court when
seeking reconsideration. See Giordano v.
Thomson. No. 03-CV-5672, 2006 WL 1882917, at *1
(E.D.N.Y. June 26, 2006).
a party is not permitted to "advance new facts, issues
or arguments not previously presented to the Court" on a
motion for reconsideration. Caribbean Trading & Fid.
Corp. v. Nigerian Nat'l Petroleum Corp.. 948 F.2d
111, 115 (2d Cir. 1991) (quotation omitted). "Indeed, a
party requesting [reconsideration] 4is not supposed to treat
the court's initial decision as the opening of a dialogue
in which that party may then use Rule [6.3] to advance new
facts and theories in response to the court's
rulings."' Church of Scientology. 1997 WL
538912, at *2 (quoting Woodard v. Hardenfelder. 845
F.Supp. 960, 966 (E.D.N.Y.1994) ("The restrictive
application of Local Rule 6.3 helps to prevent the practice
of a losing party examining a decision and then plugging the
gaps of a lost motion with additional matters.")
Plaintiff asserts that the Court overlooked controlling
Second Circuit case law when rendering its decision on
Defendant's motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs assertion,
however, is incorrect.
support of his argument, Plaintiff submits the exact same
case law he put before the Court in his opposition to the
underlying motion to dismiss, which the Court did consider in
rendering its June 16, 2017 decision. Plaintiff is attempting
to do exactly what motions for reconsideration prohibit -
reargue the position already considered and rejected by the
Court. While Plaintiff may be unhappy that the Court did not
accept its interpretation and application of the case law he
submitted, his assertion that the Court overlooked the case
law is incorrect.
Plaintiffs motion for ...