From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

DBT GMBH DBT America, Inc. v. J.L. Mining Co.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Aug 28, 2008
06 Civ. 448 (RWS) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2008)

Opinion

06 Civ. 448 (RWS).

August 28, 2008


OPINION and ORDER


Plaintiffs DBT GmbH and DBT America, Inc. (collectively, "DBT" or the "Plaintiffs") have moved for partial reconsideration of the Court's Decision and Order of April 8, 2008, granting partial summary judgment to defendants J.L. Mining Company, The Marmon Group Ltd., and Marmon Wire Cable LLC (collectively, "Marmon" or the "Defendants"). "Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.3, a party seeking reconsideration must demonstrate that the Court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that might materially have influenced its earlier decision." Nat'l Cong. for Puerto Rican Rights v. City of New York, 191 F.R.D. 52, 53 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (internal quotations omitted); see also Borochoff v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, 07 Civ. 5574 (LLS), 2008 WL 3466400, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2008) ("The major grounds justifying reconsideration are `an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.'" (quoting Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992)).

Plaintiffs' motion simply rehashes arguments that were rejected by the Court on summary judgment. Because DBT fails to point to any facts or law that the Court overlooked, the motion for reconsideration is denied.

It is so ordered.


Summaries of

DBT GMBH DBT America, Inc. v. J.L. Mining Co.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Aug 28, 2008
06 Civ. 448 (RWS) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2008)
Case details for

DBT GMBH DBT America, Inc. v. J.L. Mining Co.

Case Details

Full title:DBT GMBH and DBT AMERICA, INC., Plaintiffs, v. J.L. MINING CO., THE MARMON…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Aug 28, 2008

Citations

06 Civ. 448 (RWS) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2008)