Opinion
03 Civ. 7902 (DAB).
August 18, 2006
MEMORANDUM ORDER
This case pertains to Plaintiff Learning Links' allegations that Defendants breached their agreement to provide volume shipping discounts. On March 23, 2006, the Court denied Defendants' Motion to Dismiss ("March 23 Order"). Defendants now move the court to reconsider its March 23 Order "to the extent that the Court ruled that the 18-month limitations period of 49 U.S.C. § 14705(b) does not apply to the Amended Complaint." (Defs.' Mot. to Reconsider at 1.) In the alternative, Defendants seek certification for an interlocutory appeal of the March 23 Order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). For the reasons contained herein, Defendants' Motion shall be DENIED.
The Court presumes familiarity with the facts of the case and only reiterates them to the extent necessary.
DISCUSSION
"The standards governing a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) and motions for reconsideration or reargument pursuant to Local Rule 6.3 are the same." Word v. Croce, No. 00 Civ. 6496, 2001 WL 755394, at * 2 (S.D.N.Y. July 5, 2001). The standard for granting a motion to reconsider "is strict, and reconsideration will generally 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. CSC Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995);see also Range Road Music, Inc. v. Music Sales Corp., 90 F. Supp. 2d 390, 392 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (holding that a motion for reconsideration "is appropriate only where the movant demonstrates that the Court has overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before it on the underlying motion . . . and which, had they been considered, might have reasonably altered the result before the court.").Furthermore, a motion for reconsideration is not one in which a party may reargue "those issues already considered when a party does not like the way the original motion was resolved." In re Houbigant, Inc., 914 F. Supp. 997, 1001 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). Thus Local Rule 6.3 should be "narrowly construed and strictly applied" to avoid repetitive arguments already submitted to the Court. National Congress for Puerto Rican Rights v. City of New York, 191 F.R.D. 52, 53 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (citation omitted). Moreover, the parties "may not address facts, issues or arguments not previously presented to the Court," U.S. Titan v. Guangzhou Zhen Hua Shipping Co., Ltd., 182 F.R.D. 97, 100 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (citations omitted), because a motion to reconsider should never act "as a substitute for appealing from a final judgment."Bonnie Co. Fashions, Inc. v. Bankers Trust Co., 170 F.R.D. 111, 113 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (citation omitted).
Defendants argue that Plaintiff's claims which accrued prior to February 28, 2002 are untimely under the eighteen-month statute of limitations at 49 U.S.C. § 14705(b) ("Section 14705(b)"). That statute provides that "[a] person must begin a civil action to recover overcharges within 18 months after the claim accrues." 49 U.S.C. § 14705(b).
Defendants' argument erroneously assumes that Plaintiff's claims involve "overcharges". Though the term "overcharge" is not expressly defined at 49 U.S.C. § 13102, Congress clearly intended the statute of limitations under Section 14705(b) to apply only to claims brought under the statutory section immediately preceding it. The preceding section states that "[a] carrier providing transportation or service . . . is liable to a person for amounts charged that exceed the applicable rate for transportation or service contained in a tariff rate under section 13702. . . . A person may bring a civil action to enforce liability. . . ." 49 U.S.C. §§ 14704(b) (c) (1). See also Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n, Inc. v. Bulkmatic Transport. Co., 2004 WL 1151555 (N.D. Ill. 2004), at *3 ("[Section 14705] establish[es] 18-month statute of limitations for civil actions brought under section 14704(c) (1) to recover overcharges".). "[T]he phrase `overcharge' as used by the Surface Transportation Board embraces only cases in which carriers demand and receive a rate in excess of the published rate." 13 Am. Jur. 2d Carriers § 185. See also Miller v. Davis, 240 N.W. 743, 744 (Iowa Sup.Ct. 1932) (citing Tyson Jones Buggy Co. v. Aberdeen Asheboro Ry. Co., 17 I.C.C. 330). Therefore, the eighteen-month statute of limitations on "overcharge" claims applies only to carriers who charge more than their published tariff rates.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff Learning Links does not allege that Defendants charged more than their published tariff rate. Rather, they allege that Defendants did not provide a volume shipping discount to which the parties had privately agreed. The eighteen-month statute of limitations for "overcharge" claims thus does not apply to Learning Links' Complaint. Accordingly, Defendants' request for reconsideration hereby is DENIED.
Defendants alternatively have moved the Court to certify its March 23 Order for an interlocutory appeal.
When a district judge, in making in a civil action an order not otherwise appealable . . ., shall be of the opinion that such order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order would materially advance the ultimate termination of litigation, [the district judge] shall so state in writing in such order.28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). In light of the clear statutory intent that the eighteen-month statute of limitations applies only to published rate overcharges, as well as the case law and treatises evincing such intent, there is not a substantial ground for difference of opinion on this issue. Accordingly, Defendants' request that the Court certify its March 23, 2006 Order for interlocutory appeal hereby is DENIED.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Defendants' Motion is DENIED. Pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall appear before the Court for a scheduling conference on October 27, 2006 at 11:00 AM.SO ORDERED.