Opinion
00 CIV. 731 (DLC)
July 18, 2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On September 18, 2001, this Court issued an Opinion granting defendant Minolta Business Systems, Inc.'s ("Minolta") unopposed motion for summary judgment and dismissing plaintiff Hacene Layachi's ("Layachi") claim of employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. The Court dismissed his complaint on the ground that the defendant had articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating Layachi's employment and Layachi had failed to show this reason to be pretextual or otherwise establish that he had been discriminated against on the basis of his creed or national origin. Layachi v. Minolta Bus. Sys., Inc., No. 00 Civ. 731 (DLC), 2001 WL 1098008, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2001)
Although prior to this decision, the plaintiff had been granted extensions to allow him to participate in discovery and respond to a motion by the defendants for summary judgment1 he nonetheless failed to submit any evidence in opposition to that motion or to request an extension.
On May 31, 2002, Layachi filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 60(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. Layachi's motion does not identify the basis for his request for reconsideration of the September 18 Opinion although it does indicate that other persons knew of his problems on the job. By letter of June 11, 2002, Minolta opposed the motion.
Rule 60(b) sets forth the grounds on which a court can rescind or amend a final judgment or order. These grounds include, inter alia: "(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; . . . (3) fraud . . ., misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment." Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). "A motion for relief from judgment is generally not favored and is properly granted only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances." United States v. Int'l Bd. of Teamsters, 247 F.3d 370, 391 (2d Cir. 2001). Properly applied, "Rule 60(b) strikes a balance between serving the ends of justice and preserving the finality of judgments," and it cannot be used as a substitute for appeal. Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 61 (2d Cir. 1986). A motion seeking relief pursuant to Rule 60(b) is addressed to the sound discretion of the district court. Id.
The plaintiff has not identified any grounds that would justify relief under any of Rule 60(b)'s subsections. Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion is denied.
SO ORDERED: