Opinion
95 Civ. 8851 (RPP)
August 3, 2001
Castellanos Law Firm By: Alfredo Castellanos, Esq., San Juan, PR 00917, Counsel for Plaintiff
Frankel Abrams, By: Sandor Frankel, Esq., Stuart Abrams, Esq., New York, N.Y. 10169, Counsel for Defendant
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff New Shows, S.A. de C.V., ("Plaintiff') moves pursuant to S. E.D.N.Y. Local Civil Rule ("Loc. Civ. R.") 6.3 for reconsideration of this Court's Opinion and Order dated June 12, 2001, denying with prejudice Plaintiffs renewed application for an award of attorney's fees and granting Defendant's motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Fed.R.Civ.P.") 11 for an order awarding monetary sanctions against Plaintiff. Defendant Don King Productions, Inc. ("Defendant") opposes the motion.
Loc. Civ. R. 6.3 provides in pertinent part: A notice of motion for reconsideration or reargument shall be served within ten (10) days after the docketing of the court's determination of the original motion. There shall be served with the notice of motion a memorandum setting forth concisely the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the court has overlooked.
"To be entitled to reargument, a party "must demonstrate that the Court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before it on the underlying motion," Eisemann v. Greene, 204 F.3d 393, 395 n. 2 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting Shamis v. Ambassador Factors Corp., 187 F.R.D. 148, 151 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)), or that there is a need to correct a clear error or prevent, manifest injustice, "United States ex rel. Mikes v. Straus, 78 F. Supp.2d 223, 224 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). "Because of the strong interest in preserving scarce judicial resources and avoiding piecemeal litigation, Local 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." O'Brien v. Bd. of Educ. of Deer Park Union Free Sch. Dist., 127 F. Supp.2d 342, 345 (E.D.N.Y. 2001) (internal citations and quotations omitted). At the same time, "a party in its motion for reargument may not advance new facts, issues or arguments not previously presented to the court." Id. (citation and internal quotation omitted). "The standard for granting [a motion for reconsideration] 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 conclusions reached by the court." Shrader v. CSX Transnp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). Further, a motion for reconsideration "is not a motion to 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).
Plaintiffs motion does not demonstrate that the Court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before it on the underlying motion. Rather, Plaintiff reasserts that his renewed application for an award of attorney's fees was reasonable. Plaintiff also now raises a new argument not previously presented in this proceeding that the costs requested by Plaintiff fall within the purview of 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Loc. Civ. R. 54.1 requires that applications for costs under that section be filed with the clerk of the court within thirty days of entry of final judgment or within thirty days after the final disposition of an appeal. Plaintiffs invocation of 28 U.S.C. § 1920 for the first time in this motion is untimely and improperly directed. Since Plaintiff has not demonstrated that it is entitled to reargument, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration pursuant to Loc. Civ. R. 6.3 is denied.
Loc. Civ. R. 54.1 provides in pertinent part: Within thirty (30) days after the entry of final judgment, or, in the case of an appeal by any party, within thirty (30) days after the final disposition of the appeal, unless this period is extended by the court for good cause shown, any party seeking to recover costs shall file with the clerk a request to tax costs annexing a bill of costs and indicating the date and time of taxation. Costs will not be taxed during the pendency of any appeal. Any party failing to file a request to tax costs within this thirty (30) day period will be deemed to have waived costs.