Opinion
06 Civ. 1405 (LAK) (KNF).
May 29, 2007
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Defendants Joseph Haas, Joshua Pappas and Brian Stauch have made an application, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.3 of this court (see entry number 86 on the docket sheet maintained by the Clerk of Court for this action), that the Court reconsider its report dated April 30, 2007, recommending that a default judgment be entered against the three defendants identified above.
Local Civil Rule 6.3 of this court provides, in pertinent part, that a notice of motion for reconsideration or reargument "shall be served with . . . a memorandum setting forth concisely the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the court has overlooked." "Thus, to be entitled to reargument and reconsideration, the movant must demonstrate that the Court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before it on the underlying motion. . . . [A] party may not `advance new facts, issues or arguments not previously presented to the Court.'" Hamilton v. Garlock, Inc., 115 F. Supp. 2d 437, 438-9 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). A motion for reconsideration "is not a motion to reargue those issues already considered when a party does not like the way the original motion was resolved." In re Initial Public Offering Antitrust Litigation, No. 01 Civ. 2014, 2004 WL 789770, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 13, 2004) (quoting Yurman Design Inc. v. Chaindom Enterprises, Inc., No. 99 Civ. 9307, 2003 WL 22047849, at *1 [S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2003]). The decision to grant or deny a motion such as the one before the Court is within the sound discretion of the Court. Id.
In the instant case, the defendants have presented to the Court factual matters and made citation to case law that were not put before the Court when it entertained the underlying motion made by the plaintiff. The defendants' presentation of this material to the Court is improper. See Ameritrust Co. Nat'l Assoc. v. Dew, 151 F.R.D. 237, 239 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (analyzing former Local Civil Rule 3[i], the predecessor to Local Civil Rule 6.3 of this court). The Court finds that when these factual matters and decisional law are excised from the defendants' submissions to the Court in support of their request for reconsideration, no controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before it on the underlying motion made by the plaintiff were overlooked. Consequently, there is no basis upon which the Court may rely to grant the defendants' application for reconsideration. Therefore, the defendants' application is denied.
SO ORDERED: