United States District Court, S.D. New York
OPINION & ORDER
J. NATHAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
a trademark infringement action brought by Plaintiffs WowWee
Group Ltd., WowWee Canada, Inc., and WowWee USA, Inc. against
83 Defendants. On March 27, 2019, the Court issued a Final
Default Judgment as to Plaintiffs' federal claims, as
well as one of its state claims against 45 defaulting
defendants. It also granted a post-judgment asset freeze
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 69 and N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5222.
See Dkt. No. 84, at 12. However, the Court denied
Plaintiffs' request for a broader post-judgment asset
freeze based on Rule 65, the Lanham Act, and the Court's
equitable powers, as explained in its Opinion and Order.
See WowWee Group Ltd. v. Meirly, No. 18-cv-706, 2019
WL 1375470 (S.D.N.Y. March 27, 2019) [hereafter, "DJ
Op."]. Now before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion
for reconsideration of the denial of the asset freeze and
transfer. See Dkt. No. 90, 91. For the following
reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' motion for
Court assumes the parties' familiarity with the factual
history of this trademark action. See DJ Op. at
March 2019 Opinion and Order, the Court granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment against the 45
defaulting defendants. See DJ Op. at * 1 n.1. The
Court granted the motion on the Plaintiffs' trademark
counterfeiting, trademark infringement, false designation of
origin, and copyright infringement claims. It also granted
the motion with respect to Plaintiffs' unfair competition
claim under New York law. As a remedy, the Court granted
permanent injunctive relief and statutory damages, but denied
Plaintiffs' request for a post-judgment asset freeze or
transfer pursuant to Rule 65, the Lanham Act, and the
Court's equitable powers. DJ Op. at *7-* 11. However, in
its Judgment the Court did grant an asset freeze pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 69 and N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5222. See
Dkt. No. 84, at 12. On April 1, 2019, Plaintiffs requested
that the Court continue the preliminary injunction order
issued on February 8, 2018 pending a motion for
reconsideration. Dkt. No. 87. On April 8, the Court denied
the continuation request. Dkt. No. 88. Now, Plaintiffs seek
reconsideration of the denial of the post-judgment asset
freeze and asset transfer. Dkt. No. 90, 91.
of a court's previous order is an "extraordinary
remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality
and conservation of scarce judicial resources." In
re Health Mgmt. Sys. Inc. Secs. Litig., 113 F.Supp.2d
613, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (quotation omitted). A motion for
reconsideration is not an opportunity to "relitigate an
issue already decided," Shrader v. CSX Transp.,
Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995), or to
"advance new theories that the movant failed to advance
in connection with the underlying motion." Parrish
v. Sollecito, 253 F.Supp.2d 713, 715 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
For this reason, a district court has broad discretion in
deciding a motion for reconsideration.
motion for reconsideration should only be granted "when
the [moving party] identifies an intervening change of
controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the
need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest
injustice." Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil of Tartikov,
Inc. v. YLL Irrevocable Tr., 729 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir.
2013) (quoting Virgin Atl Airways, Ltd. v. Nat'l
Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992)). The
standard is "strict, and reconsideration will generally
be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling
decisions or data that the court overlooked . . . that might
reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the
court." Shrader, 70 F.3d at 257.
moves for reconsideration of the Court's denial of its
requested asset freeze. As an initial matter, the Court notes
that Plaintiffs appear to be under the mistaken impression
that the Court's Opinion and Judgment failed to grant any
asset freeze at all. That is, Plaintiffs appear to be unaware
that the Court did grant an asset freeze pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 69 and N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5222. The
Court's Opinion explained that Plaintiffs "should
turn to the remedies ordinarily applicable to enforcement of
judgments at law under Rule 69 and N.Y. C.P.L.R. §
5222" in order to freeze Defendants' assets. DJ Op.
at * 11. Moreover, the Judgment issued by the Court ordered
In accordance with Rule 69 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and Section 5222 of New York State's Civil
Practice Law and Rules ("CPLR"), and this
Court's inherent equitable power to issue remedies
ancillary to its authority to provide final relief, the
Defendants are forbidden to make or suffer any sale,
assignment, transfer or interference with any property in
which they have an interest, except as set forth in
subdivisions (h) and (i) of Section 5222 of the CPLR.
Dkt. No. 84, at 12.
Court therefore did order an asset freeze under Rule 69 and
state law. What the Court denied was a broader asset freeze
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, the Lanham ...