Opinion
01 Civ. 8594 (LTS) (RLE).
January 12, 2007
OPINION AND ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
Pro se plaintiff, Juan Candelaria ("Candelaria"), requests reargument and reconsideration of this Court's Memorandum Order dated November 1, 2006, denying Candelaria's application for 1) the substitution or joinder of third-party defendants as successors of defendant St. Agnes Hospital ("St. Agnes"), and 2) for the appointment of a receiver to take charge and to administer all funds, proceeds, assets, and tangible and intangible property that belongs to St. Agnes. Specifically, Candelaria asks for reconsideration of this Court's finding that the "remaining limits of liability for claims against St. Agnes and the other Our Lady of Mercy Medical Center [insureds] is thirty million dollars." November 1, 2006 Memorandum Order ("Order") at 1-2. Candelaria also requests the Court to set trial dates because defendants have indicated that they do not intend to settle this matter.
II. STANDARD FOR RECONSIDERATION
Candelaria may move for reconsideration of the Opinion and Order on the basis of "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect." Rule 60(b)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He must outline "the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the court has overlooked." Local Rule 6.3. Reconsideration is merited if Candelaria can "demonstrate that the Court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before it on the underlying motion." Shamis v. Ambassador Factors Corp. , 187 F.R.D. 148, 151 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). The matters must "reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court." Davidson v. Scully , 175 F. Supp. 2d 458, 461 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). "Local Rule 6.3 is to be narrowly construed and strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the court." Id .
III. DISCUSSION
In its Order, the Court found that joinder or substitution of third-party defendants as successors of St. Agnes was unnecessary to accord Candelaria complete relief, notwithstanding the fact that St. Agnes has ceased operation. Order at 1. Similarly, this Court found that injunctive relief was inappropriate here because there is an adequate award of money damages to afford Candelaria relief. Id . at 2. The Court based its conclusion on the evidence in the record demonstrating that the remaining limits of liability for claims against St. Agnes and the other Our Lady of Mercy Medical Center insureds is thirty million dollars, which is adequate to cover Candelaria's damages claim seeking twenty-five million dollars. Id . at 1-2. The Court's conclusion was also based on evidence that this claim is the only open, asserted claim against St. Agnes that implicates the relevant insurance policies. Id . at 2. Candelaria argues that this Court overlooked the material fact that the thirty million dollar insurance policy covers eight other insured organizations.
This Court finds that the defendants have demonstrated the ability to cover any reasonable expected recovery in this case. While it is true that the insurance policy does cover St. Agnes and eight other institutions, this Court finds that the limits of liability available to St. Agnes are sufficient. The affidavit of Douglas C. Mackenzie includes a table showing the various layers of coverage in the applicable insurance policy. See Motion for Reconsideration, Exh. A at 2. This table demonstrates that excluding the $2.5 million remaining in excess layer 4, the remaining limits of liability for claims against each individual participating institutions, including St. Agnes, is thirty million dollars. Therefore, in the event that Candelaria is awarded the full twenty-five million dollars sought, the thirty million dollar policy is adequate coverage.
IV. CONCLUSION
Because there is sufficient insurance coverage to cover a full award of damages, it is unnecessary to join a third-party successor defendant, and injunctive relief is inappropriate. Therefore, Candelaria's motion for reargument and reconsideration is DENIED. Candelaria's request for trial dates is DENIED as premature; discovery is incomplete.
SO ORDERED.