Opinion
02 CV 5912 (WK).
October 16, 2002
ORDER
INTRODUCTION
On July 25, 2002, Petitioner Peter Kruse ("Petitioner" or "Kruse") moved, pursuant to Section 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act (the "FAA"), 9 U.S.C. § 9, for an order confirming a securities industry award (the "Award") issued on June 18, 2002. The Award was entered by three arbitrators of the National Association of Securities Dealers ("NASD") and directed Respondents, Sands Brothers Co. ("Sands") and Peter Pak ("Pak") jointly and severally, to pay Kruse the amount of $300,960.08. The NASD requires that "all monetary awards shall be paid within thirty (30) days of receipt unless a motion to vacate has been filed with a court of competent jurisdiction." NASD Manual Rule 10330. Neither Respondent has paid Kruse any of the sum awarded him. Kruse filed his Petition to Confirm the Award on July 25, 2002. On August 9, 2002, Respondents filed an Answer to Kruse's Petition to Confirm and a Counter-Petition to Vacate. On October 3, 2002, we granted Kruse's Petition to Confirm the Award. See Kruse v. Sands Brothers Co. and Peter Pak (S.D.N.Y. 2002), 2002 WL 31234684.
Respondents have since requested a conference with the Court. (Letter from Roth to the Court of October 15, 2002). Since this matter has already been decided, we construe Respondents' letter as seeking reconsideration of our decision granting Kruse's Petition to Confirm the Arbitration Award. The purpose of a request for reconsideration is to invite review of a ruling on the ground that the Court overlooked material facts or authorities that, had they been considered by the court, would have required a different result. S.D.N.Y.Civ.R. 6.3. See Effron v. Sun Line Cruises, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 1994), 158 F.R.D. 39.
We note that pursuant to S.D.N.Y.Civ.R. 6.3, a notice of motion for reconsideration "shall be served with . . . a memorandum setting forth concisely the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the court has overlooked." Respondents have not filed either a motion for reconsideration or the required memorandum. We nonetheless address Respondents' request for the sake of efficiency, given the expiration of the statute of limitations under 9 U.S.C. § 12.
While Petitioner may have requested a conference with the Court, and Respondent may have eventually joined in that request, at no time prior to September 18 — the date on which Respondents' time to file its motion to vacate expired — did the Court indicate that we would grant such a request. That the Court did not respond to the parties' requests for a conference does not relieve Respondents of the requirement that they submit a motion to vacate within three months of the issuance of the Award. Id. In the absence of any response from the Court granting or denying the request for a conference to schedule its motion to vacate, Respondents chose to sit idly by and not file the motion papers clearly required under the law. Id. We regret the confusion over the existence of a possible conference to schedule the briefing of a motion to vacate that arose after the expiration of Respondents' time to file a motion to vacate. 9 U.S.C. § 12. However, given the timing, such confusion had no effect on Respondents' decision not to file its motion. We believe that our Opinion and Order came to the correct result. For the reasons set forth therein, we deny Respondents' request for reconsideration.
SO ORDERED.