You're viewing Docket Item 18 from the case Gonzalez Cordero v. Astrue. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 3:12-cv-01253-AWT Document 18 Filed 06/04/13 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT




LELLANY GONZALEZ CORDERO,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER
OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:










CASE NO. 3:12CV1253(DFM)






RULING ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff Lellany Gonzalez Cordero filed this action on

August 27, 2012 seeking review of the final decision of the

defendant Commissioner of Social Security denying her

application for child's disability benefits and supplemental

security income. Pending before the court is defendant's Motion

to Reconsider the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Ruling. (Doc.

#16.) In that Recommended Ruling (doc. #13) denying defendant's

motion to dismiss, the undersigned determined that venue is

proper in the District of Connecticut.

The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration "is

strict, and reconsideration generally will be denied unless the

moving party can 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, 257 (2d Cir.

Case 3:12-cv-01253-AWT Document 18 Filed 06/04/13 Page 2 of 3

1995) (citations omitted). A "motion to reconsider should not

be granted where the moving party seeks solely to relitigate an

issue already decided." Id. "The major grounds justifying

reconsideration are 'an intervening change of controlling law,

the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear

error or prevent manifest injustice.'" Virgin Atl. Airways,

Ltd. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992)

(citing 18 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H.

Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4478, at 790 (1981)).

Here, defendant reiterates the arguments raised in his

motion to dismiss (doc. #10) and reply brief (doc. #12), and the

additional case law cited by defendant predates the motion to

dismiss. In short, he cites no new facts and no intervening

change of law. Because a "motion to reconsider should not be

granted where the moving party seeks solely to relitigate an

issue already decided," Shrader, 70 F.3d at 257, reconsideration

is not warranted here.

Even if the court were to reconsider, it would reach the

same conclusion. On a Rule 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss for

improper venue, plaintiff bears the burden of proving that venue

is proper in the forum. Indymac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. v.

Reyad, 167 F. Supp. 2d 222, 237 (D. Conn. 2001). The court

assumes the truth of all allegations in the complaint unless

contradicted by the defendant's affidavits, in which case "'[a]



2

Case 3:12-cv-01253-AWT Document 18 Filed 06/04/13 Page 3 of 3

court may examine facts outside the complaint to determine

whether venue is proper." Id. (quoting 5A Charles Alan Wright &

Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d §

1352 (1990 & Supp. 1999)). The court previously considered the

evidence cited by defendant in the pending motion, and its

analysis has not changed. Drawing all reasonable inferences and

resolving all factual conflicts in plaintiff's favor, as it is

obliged to do, see id., the court concludes that plaintiff

resided in Connecticut at the commencement of this action for

purposes of jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).



For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Reconsider (doc.

#16) is DENIED.



SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 4th day of June,

2013.

























_________/s/___________________
Donna F. Martinez
United States Magistrate Judge



3