Grocery Haulers, Inc. v. C & S Wholesale Grocers, Inc.

3 Citing cases

  1. Fezzani v. Bear, Stearns & Co.

    99 Civ. 0793 (PAC) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2023)   Cited 3 times

    The use of the law of the case doctrine was thus not “clearly erroneous,” and was appropriate as applied to a denial of summary judgment. See Grocery Haulers, Inc. v. C & S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., No. 11 CIV. 3130 JSR, 2013 WL 342693, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2013) (applying the law of the case doctrine to a contract interpretation in a denial of summary judgment).

  2. Berman v. Durkin

    9:13-CV-136 (LEK/DJS) (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2019)

    The doctrine is discretionary, and expresses, in shorthand fashion, a practice of courts not to reconsider that which has already been decided." Grocery Haulers, Inc. v. C & S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., 2013 WL 342693, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2013).

  3. Klaper v. Cypress Hills Cemetery

    10-CV-1811 (NGG) (LB) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2014)   Cited 1 times

    That determination remains law of the case absent good cause warranting reconsideration. See Grocery Haulers. Inc. v. C & S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., No. 11-CV-3130 (JSR), 2013 WL 342693, at *2-4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2013) (describing an earlier opinion interpreting contractual language as deciding an issue of law, and affording that interpretation "law of the case status"); Versatile Housewares & Gardening Sys., Inc. v. Thill Logistics. Inc., 819 F. Supp. 2d 230, 238-39 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (applying law of the case doctrine to court's interpretation of a contractual clause); cf. Omni Quartz. Ltd. v. CVS Corp., 287 F.3d 61, 64 (2d Cir. 2002) (noting that the "proper interpretation of an unambiguous contract is a question for law for the court"). (See also R&R at 6-7 (finding this decision was on an issue of law, rather than fact).)