Opinion
08 Civ. 4148 (KNF).
January 7, 2009
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
The plaintiffs commenced this action for damages, raising claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") and state law, based on the defendants' alleged "fraudulent, deceptive and illegal home construction practices." The complaint alleges the court has jurisdiction pursuant to,inter alia, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. According to the complaint, the defendants were hired by the plaintiffs to "renovate one of Plaintiffs' residences, located [in] . . . Holmdel, New Jersey," and to "redecorate certain rooms in the plaintiffs' residence [in] . . . New York, New York."
In November 2008, the defendants moved to transfer venue from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. In this motion, the defendants represented that venue was proper in New Jersey, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404 and 1391, because: (1) the majority of the work the defendants were hired to perform was for the plaintiffs' New Jersey property; (2) all defendants reside in New Jersey; (3) the plaintiffs' principal residence is in New Jersey; (4) most witnesses and "sources of proof" are located in New Jersey; (5) New Jersey law will apply to the claims arising from work performed in New Jersey; (6) all agreements were negotiated, and entered into, in New Jersey; and (7) trial efficiency and the interests of justice would be promoted via the transfer.
On November 25, 2008, the Court granted the defendants' motion, Docket Entry No. 34. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed the instant motion, requesting that the Court reconsider its transfer order, in light of the arguments asserted in the plaintiffs' memorandum of law and declaration filed in opposition to the defendants' motion to transfer venue, which were derailed by a filing error and not considered by the Court previously. The plaintiffs have also submitted an amended complaint and request that the Court deem it timely filed.
In the opposition papers at issue, the plaintiffs argued for an order denying the defendants' motion because: (a) the defendants' proffered only a "speculative conclusion" that a correlation exists between the quantity of work to be performed on each property and the cost of that work; (b) the plaintiffs' choice of forum is entitled to substantial deference; (c) a "substantial portion of significant events giving rise to the alleged violations of law emanated from New York"; (d) the defendants failed to identify specific witnesses who would be inconvenienced should the case proceed in a New York forum; (e) the plaintiffs are entitled to pre-trial discovery on "issues of fact raised by [the] motion to dismiss for improper venue"; and (f) venue is proper in New York based on the plaintiffs' RICO claims.
In response to the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, the defendants reiterated the arguments presented in their venue transfer motion. The plaintiffs filed a reply to the defendants' response, in which the plaintiffs repeated the arguments raised in the original opposition papers and also argued that: the defendants "misrepresented the facts of the plaintiffs' case" and failed to provide "any proof or hard data" supporting the defendants' allegations regarding the costs attributable to the New York and New Jersey projects, respectively.
Local Civil Rule 6.3 of this court authorizes a party to apply to the court for reconsideration of an order that resolved a motion. However, the rule is to be applied strictly and construed narrowly, in order to "`avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the [c]ourt.'" Davidson v. Scully, 172 F. Supp. 2d 458, 462 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (quoting Dellefave v. Access Temps., Inc., No. 99 Civ. 6098, 2001 WL 286771, at *1 [S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2001]). A motion for reconsideration is not a means by which a party may "`reargue those issues already considered when a party does not like the way the original motion was resolved.'" Finkelstein v. Mardkha, 518 F. Supp. 2d 609, 611 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (quoting In re Houbigant Inc., 914 F. Supp. 997, 1001 [S.D.N.Y. 1996]). Nor is such a motion a vehicle through which a party may "`advance new facts, issues or arguments not previously presented to the Court.'" Id. (quoting Hamilton v. Garlock, Inc., 115 F. Supp. 2d 437, 438-39 [S.D.N.Y. 2000]).
"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 conclusion reached by the court."Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). Having considered the parties' respective written submissions,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the plaintiffs' motion is denied. The arguments advanced by the plaintiffs, before the Court now, do not demonstrate that key facts or controlling law put before it previously, in ruling on the defendants' motion to transfer venue through the November 25, 2008 order, were overlooked by the Court. The plaintiffs' request, that its amended complaint be deemed timely filed, is denied, as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404.
SO ORDERED.