You're viewing Docket Item 53 from the case AEP-PRI Inc. v. Galtronics Corporation Ltd. et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:

Case 1:12-cv-08981-PAE Document 53 Filed 09/19/13 Page 1 of 4

DOt I \: I " I

DAn: FILED: q ,q f




12 Civ. 8981 (PAE)










PAUL A. ENGELMA YER, District Judge:

On August 13,2013, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss and gave plaintiff

until August 28,2013 to file a motion to amend its pleadings. Dkt. 43, at 17. Plaintiff submitted

a timely Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), Dkt. 44, and motion to amend, Dkt. 45. On

September 6, 2013, the Court denied plaintiffs motion to amend its complaint, concluding that

plaintiffs failure to address the timing of AEP-Mauritius's dissolution and assignment of its

claims to AEP "compellingly suggests that the assignment was made to manufacture diversity

jurisdiction, and not for a legitimate business reason." Dkt. 47 at 2.

On September 17, 2013, plaintiff requested that the Court reconsider and reverse its

denial of the plaintiffs motion to amend. Dkt. 49. The same day, defendants filed a letter

opposing reconsideration. Dkt. 52. For the reasons that follow, plaintiff's motion for

reconsideration is denied.


Legal Standard for Reconsideration

The standard governing motions for reconsideration under S.D.N.Y. Local Civil Rule 6.3

"is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to

Case 1:12-cv-08981-PAE Document 53 Filed 09/19/13 Page 2 of 4

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 Fo3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995); see also Nakshin v. Holder, 360 F. App'x 192, 193 (2d

Cir. 2010) ("The threshold for prevailing on a motion for reconsideration is high."). Such a

motion is "neither an occasion for repeating old arguments previously rejected nor an

opportunity for making new arguments that could have previously been made." Associated

Press v. Us. Dep 'f ofDef, 395 F. Supp. 2d 17, 19 (S.D.N.Y. 2005); see also Goonan v. Fed.

Reserve Bank ofNY, No. 12 Civ. 3859 (JPO), 2013 WL 1386933, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2013)

("Simply put, courts do not tolerate such efforts to obtain a second bite at the apple."). District

courts will only amend or alter a jUdgment "to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest

injustice." In re Assicurazioni Generali, S.P.A., 592 F.3d 113, 120 (2d Cir. 2010).

Litigants are generally barred from introducing new facts in a motion to reconsider. See

Polsby v. St. Martin's Press, No. 97 Civ. 690 (MBM), 2000 WL 98057, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan.I8,

2000) (Mukasey, J.) (citation omitted) (On a Local Rule 603 motion, "a party may not advance

new facts, issues, or arguments, not previously presented to the Court."). A party seeking

reconsideration "is not supposed to treat the court's initial decision as the opening of a dialogue

in which that party may then use such a motion to advance new theories or adduce new evidence

in response to the court's rulings." De Los Santos v. Fingerson, No. 97 Civ. 3972 (MBM), 1998

WL 788781, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 1998). The purpose of Rule 6.3 is to '''ensure the finality

of decisions and to prevent the practice of a losing party examining a decision and then plugging

the gaps of a lost motion with additional matters.'" Naiman v. NY Univ. Hosps. Ctr., No. 95

Civ. 6469 (RPP), 2005 WL 926904, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21,2005) (quoting Carolco Pictures,

Inc. v. Sirota, 700F. Supp.169, 170 (S.D.N.Y. 1988).


Case 1:12-cv-08981-PAE Document 53 Filed 09/19/13 Page 3 of 4



Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration contains at least four new facts that it asserts

explain why AEP-Mauritius was not dissolved until November 2012: (1) the amount paid to

purchase AEP-Asia was placed into an escrow account set up under AEP-Mauritius; (2) AEP­

Mauritius was tasked with using the funds in the escrow account to settle all operating debts

owed by AEP-Asia "before the sale of AEP-Asia would be considered complete"; (3) it took

"considerable time" to settle the outstanding debts; and (4) AEP-Mauritius's final payment to the

last creditor was made on November 13,2012, upon which AEP-Mauritius was dissolved in

November 2012. Dkt. 49 at 2. Plaintiff justifies its failure to plead these facts in the SAC by

claiming they were not discoverable before the SAC was due to the Court on August 28, 2013.

ld. at I. More specifically, plaintiff claims that Pacific Resources International, LLC ("PRI")

was entrusted with the sole handling of dissolving AEP-Mauritius after the sale of AEP-Asia,

and that every person the plaintiff tried to contact at PRI was unavailable for some reason. One

contact purportedly left his job at PRI shortly before the Court's order allowing plaintiff to

amend its complaint; a second contact was hospitalized with a back injury; and a third contact

waited until this past week to provide the information summarized above. ld. at 1-2. Therefore,

plaintiff claims that it could not have discovered these facts before filing the SAC.

Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is notable for its failure to identify any facts or law

that the Court overlooked in its previous decision. Instead, plaintiff simply seeks to supplement

its SAC and its motion to amend with new facts that it previously failed to plead. To allow

reconsideration on the basis urged by plaintiff would undermine the finality of court rulings and

contravene the purpose of Local Rule 6.3. Plaintiff was solely responsible for discovering and

pleading the relevant facts it needed to support both its complaint and its amended complaint. If


Case 1:12-cv-08981-PAE Document 53 Filed 09/19/13 Page 4 of 4

plaintiff needed more time to contact employees at PRJ who could explain why AEP-Mauritius

was not dissolved until November 2012, then plaintiff could have asked the Court for an

extension before August 28, 2013. At this stage, however, the opportunity to amend the

complaint and plead new facts has passed.


For the above reasons, plaintiffs motion for reconsideration is denied.


Dated: September 19, 2013

New York, New York

United States District Judge