Filed: Dec. 16, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 16, 2019
Summary: ORDER KATHERINE POLK FAILLA , District Judge . The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of his "Omnibus Pretrial Motion," filed on October 8, 2019. (Dkt. #342). The Court had previously denied Plaintiff's motion on September 17, 2019, for largely the reasons provided by Defendants in their opposition letter. (Dkt. #341). On a motion for reconsideration, the moving party must "point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked — matters, in other words, th
Summary: ORDER KATHERINE POLK FAILLA , District Judge . The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of his "Omnibus Pretrial Motion," filed on October 8, 2019. (Dkt. #342). The Court had previously denied Plaintiff's motion on September 17, 2019, for largely the reasons provided by Defendants in their opposition letter. (Dkt. #341). On a motion for reconsideration, the moving party must "point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked — matters, in other words, tha..
More
ORDER
KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge.
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of his "Omnibus Pretrial Motion," filed on October 8, 2019. (Dkt. #342). The Court had previously denied Plaintiff's motion on September 17, 2019, for largely the reasons provided by Defendants in their opposition letter. (Dkt. #341).
On a motion for reconsideration, the moving party must "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, 256-57 (2d Cir. 1995) (internal citations omitted) (noting that the standard for granting motions for reconsideration is "strict"); accord Van Buskirk v. United Grp. of Cos., Inc., 935 F.3d 49, 54 (2d Cir. 2019). "Such a motion should not be made to reflexively [] reargue those issues already considered when a party does not like the way the original motion was resolved." In re Optimal, 813 F. Supp. 2d at 387 (quoting Makas v. Orlando, No. 06 Civ. 14305 (DAB) (AJP), 2008 WL 2139131, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted)). "Compelling reasons for granting a motion for reconsideration are limited to an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Abraham v. Leigh, No. 17 Civ. 5429 (KPF), 2018 WL 3632520, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 30, 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992)).
The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to point to controlling decisions or data that the Court overlooked, or that might reasonably be expected to alter the Court's conclusions. Instead, Plaintiff has largely repeated his prior arguments. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden on a motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff's motion is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at docket number 342.
SO ORDERED.
