Opinion
Case No. 02-CV-1440 (FB)(MG)
July 29, 2002
JOHN J. KUSTER, ESQ., JENNIFER A DEMARRAIS, ESQ., Sidley, Austin, Brown Wood, LLP, New York, New York, for the Plaintiff
MARIA T. VULLO, ESQ., Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton Garrison, New York, New York, for the Defendant
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Northville Industries Corp. ("Northville") seeks reconsideration of the Court's recent decision granting RJE Corp.'s ("RJE") request for declaratory judgment, see RJE Corp. v. Northville Industries Corp., 198 F. Supp.2d 249 (E.D.N.Y. 2002), because Northville contends certain portions of the decision "constitute dicta that are not binding on Northville in the event of any future proceedings." Northville's Memo at 2. Northville is "not seeking reconsideration by this Court of [the declaratory judgment] ruling or any portions of the Court's Opinion other than those" it believes are dicta. Id. The entire purpose of the motion is to convince the Court to reissue the decision omitting the contested portions or clarifying that those portions are dicta. See id.
"The standard for granting a motion [for reconsideration] is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked — matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court." Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995) (emphasis added); see Morales v. Quintiles Transnat'l Corp., 25 F. Supp.2d 369, 372 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (A motion for reconsideration "may be granted only where the Court has overlooked matters or controlling decisions which might have materially influenced the earlier decision." (emphasis added)). The decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is committed to the "`sound discretion of a district court judge.'" Davidson v. Scully, 172 F. Supp.2d 458, 462 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (quoting McCarthy v. Manson, 714 F.2d 234, 237 (2d Cir. 1983)).
Since Northville, by its own admission, is not seeking to "alter the conclusion reached by the court," its motion must be denied. Shrader, 70 F.3d at 257. If the contested portions of the Court's decision do contain dicta, such dicta will of course not bind Northville in any future litigation. See Bank of America Nat. Trust and Sav. Ass'n v. 203 North LaSalle Street Partnership, 526 U.S. 434 (1999) ("[D]icta bind neither this Court nor the lower federal courts."); Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602, 627 (1935) ("[D]icta . . . may be followed if sufficiently persuasive but [is] not controlling"). Northville's arguments in support of this motion should be reserved for any such future litigation. The Court expresses no opinion as to their merit or lack thereof.
SO ORDERED.