Filed: Oct. 09, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 09, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER BRENDA K. SANNES , District Judge . Presently before the Court is Plaintiff pro se Robert Schulz's motion seeking reconsideration (Dkt. No. 224) of the Court's July 12, 2018 Memorandum-Decision and Order, (Dkt. No. 223), granting in part and denying in part Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 196) and denying Schulz's motion for summary judgment, (Dkt. No. 197). 1 In general, a motion for reconsideration may only be granted upon one of three gro
Summary: MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER BRENDA K. SANNES , District Judge . Presently before the Court is Plaintiff pro se Robert Schulz's motion seeking reconsideration (Dkt. No. 224) of the Court's July 12, 2018 Memorandum-Decision and Order, (Dkt. No. 223), granting in part and denying in part Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 196) and denying Schulz's motion for summary judgment, (Dkt. No. 197). 1 In general, a motion for reconsideration may only be granted upon one of three grou..
More
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
BRENDA K. SANNES, District Judge.
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff pro se Robert Schulz's motion seeking reconsideration (Dkt. No. 224) of the Court's July 12, 2018 Memorandum-Decision and Order, (Dkt. No. 223), granting in part and denying in part Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 196) and denying Schulz's motion for summary judgment, (Dkt. No. 197).1
In general, a motion for reconsideration may only be granted upon one of three grounds: "(1) an intervening change in law, (2) the availability of evidence not previously available, and (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice." Shannon v. Verizon N.Y., Inc., 519 F.Supp.2d 304, 307 (N.D.N.Y. 2007); see also Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992) (same) (citing 18 C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure § 4478 at 790). "[A] motion to reconsider should not be granted where the moving party seeks solely to relitigate an issue already decided." Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). "The standard for reconsideration is strict and is committed to the discretion of the court." S.E.C. v. Wojeski, 752 F.Supp.2d 220, 223 (N.D.N.Y. 2010) aff'd sub nom. Smith v. S.E.C., 432 F. App'x 10 (2d Cir. 2011).
In his motion, Schulz states that he "does not seek to present the case under any new theory," but intends only to point to "controlling decisions and data that the court overlooked — matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court to prevent clear error of law and prevent manifest injustice." (Dkt. No. 224-2, at 2). Specifically, Schulz argues that (i) Agent Gordon "did not get prior written approval of the penalty determination from his supervisor," (id. at 3) and (ii) WTP was not Schulz's alter ego in 2003, (id. at 7-25).2 In support of these assertions, however, Schulz merely presents the same arguments the Court expressly addressed in its July 12, 2018 Memorandum-Decision and Order deciding the parties' motions for summary judgment, (See Dkt. No. 223, at 9 n.2, 12-16), and elsewhere, (Dkt. No. 188, at 8).3 As Schulz's motion seeks only to relitigate issues already decided, he has failed to demonstrate the need to either correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.
For these reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 224) is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff's letter motions (Dkt. No. 233, 235) seeking permission to file exhibits in support of his motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 197) are DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of Court serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order on the Plaintiff in accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
