Opinion
20 Civ. 4572 (LGS)
08-22-2023
BRIAN WATSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MANHATTAN LUXURY AUTOMOBILES, INC., Defendant.
ORDER
Lorna G. Schofield United States District Judge
WHEREAS, the August 7, 2023, Order (Dkt. 233) granted Plaintiffs' request for approval of their proposed methodology for identifying class members to be provided notice;
WHEREAS, on August 21, 2023, Defendant moved for reconsideration of the August 7, 2023, Order and requested a temporary stay of the August 31, 2023, deadline to issue notice to class members pending a decision on the motion for reconsideration;
WHEREAS, “[a] party may move for reconsideration and obtain relief only when the party identifies an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Cho v. Blackberry Ltd., 991 F.3d 155, 170 (2d Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). “The standard for granting such a motion 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.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). A motion for reconsideration is “not a vehicle for relitigating old issues, presenting the case under new theories, securing a rehearing on the merits, or otherwise taking a second bite at the apple.” Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Dill v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 19 Civ. 10947, 2021 WL 3406192, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2021). Courts “will not address new arguments or evidence that the moving party could have raised before the decision issued.” Banister v. Davis, 140 S.Ct. 1698, 1703 (2020); see also Suarez v. United States, No. 17 Civ. 133, 2022 WL 1078436, at *2 (S.D.N.Y Apr. 11, 2022). The decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration rests within “the sound discretion of the district court.” Aczel v. Labonia, 584 F.3d 52, 61 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Suarez, 2022 WL 1078436, at *2;
WHEREAS, Defendant has not been denied an opportunity to respond to the methodology endorsed in the August 7, 2023, Order. The July 28, 2023, Order instructed Defendant to file a two-page letter response to Plaintiff's proposal, which Defendant did on August 1, 2023;
WHEREAS, Defendant's motion for reconsideration raises the same objections that were raised in Defendant's August 1, 2023, letter, namely that Plaintiff's request is a fundamental alteration to the certified classes and that it departs from the methodology previously submitted by their own expert. These arguments were duly considered in the first instance. A motion for reconsideration is “not a vehicle for relitigating old issues,” Analytical Surveys, Inc., 684 F.3d at 52. It is hereby
ORDERED that Defendant's motion for reconsideration of the August 7, 2023, Order is DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that Defendant's request for a stay of the August 31, 2023, class notice deadline is DENIED.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directedto close the motionat Dkt.234.