Opinion
03 Civ. 8717 (RWS).
August 3, 2006
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Khawar Maqsood ("Maqsood") pro se has filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's opinion dated May 22, 2006,see Maqsood v. Bell Security, Inc., No. 03 civ. 8717 (RWS), 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31388 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2006), granting summary judgment to Defendant Bell Security, Inc. ("Defendant"). Plaintiff's motion was marked fully submitted on July 26, 2006.
Local Civil Rule 6.3 for the Southern District of New York provides that parties may file motions for reconsideration of the court's decisions, accompanied by a memorandum "setting forth concisely the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the court has overlooked." To be entitled to reconsideration, the movant must demonstrate that the court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before it on the underlying motion that might have altered the result reached by the Court. See Ameritrust Co. Nat'l Ass'n v. Dew, 151 F.R.D. 237, 238 (S.D.N.Y. 1993); East Coast Novelty Co. v. City of New York, 141 F.R.D. 245, 245 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). Local Civil Rule 6.3 is "narrowly construed and strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the Court." Davidson v. Scully, 172 F. Supp. 2d 458, 462 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
Having construed Plaintiff's submissions liberally and having interpreted them "to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest," McPherson v. Coombe, 174 F.3d 276, 280 (2d Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted), it is concluded that Plaintiff has failed to raise any factual matters or controlling decisions that the Court was presented with, but overlooked. As such, reconsideration of the May 22, 2006 opinion is not appropriate and Plaintiff's motion is denied.
It is so ordered.