JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge.
The plaintiffs, thirty-four former students of Yeshiva University High School for Boys ("YUHS"), move for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) of this Court's order dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint and denying a motion to amend the complaint as futile.
The motion is without merit and therefore is denied.
The Court has already set forth the facts and the procedural background of this case in its prior opinion, familiarity with which is assumed. The following facts are included because of their relevance to this motion.
The plaintiffs brought this action against YUHS, Yeshiva University, former administrators of Yeshiva University, and several unnamed members of the Board of Trustees of YUHS and Yeshiva University. The plaintiffs asserted causes of action for fraud, negligence, violation of New York's General Business Law, and violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 ("Title IX"). The plaintiffs filed this lawsuit roughly twenty-one years after the last plaintiff had left YUHS. The defendants moved to dismiss the claims as time-barred.
This Court assumed
This Court also denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs argued that the YU Report, which was released after the plaintiffs had filed the First Amended Complaint, included new and relevant facts. This Court, however, held that because "the new information that has come to light has no bearing on the fact that all claims in the First Amended Complaint are untimely as a matter of law, repleading in this action would be futile."
In September 2014, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this Court's judgment. As to the timeliness of the Title IX claim, the Court of Appeals held: "Even if we were to conclude that, in pursuing their Title IX claim, plaintiffs are entitled to the benefits of the discovery accrual rule . . ., we would have to conclude, as the district court did, that the Title IX claim is untimely."
As to the motion to amend, the Court of Appeals held that "the proposed amendments included only further allegations of defendants' knowledge of prior abuse, which, for reasons already explained, would not have rendered plaintiffs' claims timely."
The plaintiffs filed a petition for a panel rehearing or rehearing en banc, which Court of Appeals denied in October 2014. The plaintiff then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, which was denied in March 2015.
In February 2015, the plaintiffs filed this motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Generally, a motion under Rule 60(b) must be made prior to appeal. However, "when `later events' arise that were not previously considered by the appellate court," the district court may consider a Rule 60(b) motion, even if the case has not been remanded back to the district court.
The converse is also true: "a district court does not have jurisdiction to alter an appellate ruling where the appellate court has already considered and rejected the basis for the movant's Rule 60(b) motion."
There has been no change in circumstances here. The YU Report was released on August 26, 2013, and this Court considered and rejected the plaintiffs' argument that information in that report could render their claims timely.
The reasoning by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals was clear. The plaintiffs were on inquiry notice "more than 20 years before filing this suit" because "they were unquestionably aware of (1) their injuries, (2) their abusers' identities, and (3) their abusers' prior and continued employment at YUHS."
At bottom, the plaintiffs criticize the decision of the Court of Appeals. They argue that the "Second Circuit made a
Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is
The Court has considered all of the arguments raised by the parties. To the extent not specifically addressed above, they are either moot or without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the motion for reconsideration is