Opinion
21 Civ. 7922 (AKH)
01-24-2024
MIDCAP BUSINESS CREDIT, LLC, Plaintiff, v. MIDCAP FINANCIAL TRUST, APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT, INC., MIDCAP FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, MIDCAP FINANCIAL SERVICES CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, MIDCAP FINCO HOLDINGS LIMITED, MIDCAP FINCO DESIGNATED ACTIVITY COMPANY, APOLLO CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P., APOLLO INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, L.P., APOLLO INVESTMENT ADMINISTRATION, LLC, and MIDCAP FINANCIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION, Defendants.
ORDER
ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, U.S.D.J.
The plaintiffs motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 98) is denied. The motion raises new grounds not argued in the plaintiff s former papers-specifically, in its opposition to the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. The plaintiff also had the opportunity to raise additional state law claims at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and did not do so. “A motion for reconsideration is not an ‘opportunity for making new arguments that could have been previously advanced Gusinksy v. Barclays PLC, 944 F.Supp.2d 279, 295 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (quoting Doughtery v. Town of N. Hempstead Bd. Of Zoning Appeals, 282 F.3d 83, 87 (2d Cir. 2002)).
Additionally, the plaintiff has failed to show how Maryland or Delaware law meaningfully differ from the previously pled and dismissed New York state law claims. Accordingly, as a matter of discretion, and in line with the Court of Appeals' mandate remanding only the plaintiffs federal claims (ECF No. 41), I hold that the inclusion of state law claims in the Plaintiffs amended complaint is improper.
The motion for reconsideration of my November 30, 2023 order granting judgment on the pleadings is denied. The Clerk of Court shall terminate ECF No. 98.
SO ORDERED.