From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rafter v. Liddle

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Mar 16, 2007
05 CV 4296 (TPG) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2007)

Opinion

05 CV 4296 (TPG).

March 16, 2007


OPINION


On August 3, 2006 the court issued an opinion granting defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Pro se plaintiff now moves for reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e).

To prevail on a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e), plaintiff must present facts or controlling law that the court overlooked which may have materially influence its earlier decision. Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. Betancourt, No. 04 Civ. 3638, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17500, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). Plaintiff bears a heavy burden, because such motions are not intended to be vehicles for "presenting the case under new theories, securing a rehearing on the merits, or otherwise taking a second bite at the apple." Sequa Corp. v. GBJ Corp., 156 F.3d 136, 144 (2d Cir. 1998). Despite her lengthy memoranda in support of the current motion, plaintiff has not made such a showing.

Plaintiff's motion is denied.

SO ORDERED


Summaries of

Rafter v. Liddle

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Mar 16, 2007
05 CV 4296 (TPG) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2007)
Case details for

Rafter v. Liddle

Case Details

Full title:MARCIA RAFTER Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY LIDDLE, MIRIAM ROBINSON, LAURENCE MOY…

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

Date published: Mar 16, 2007

Citations

05 CV 4296 (TPG) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2007)