Under Rule 59(e), we may alter or amend a judgment if the moving party demonstrates that we "overlooked controlling decisions or material facts that were before [us] on the original motion" that might have materially influenced the outcome. Sikhs for Justice v. Nath, 893 F. Supp. 2d 598, 605 (S.D.N.Y. 2012); Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012); Arthur Glick Truck Sales, Inc. v. Stuphen East Corp., 11 C 2824, 2013 WL 4028184, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2013); Lent v. Fashion Mall Partners, L.P., 243 F.R.D. 97, 98 (S.D.N.Y. 2007); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b) (allowing the court to "amend its findings—or make additional findings" and to "amend the judgment accordingly"). Thus, for example, we may grant reconsideration if presented with "an intervening change in controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice."
“In addition, a court may also properly exercise its staying power when a higher court is close to settling an important issue of law bearing on the action.” Sikhs for Just. v. Nath, 893 F.Supp.2d 598, 622 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). This includes cases where “the issues . . . are [not] necessarily controlling on the action before the court.” Id.
the interests of the courts; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the public interest.Nelson v. G.Skill USA, Inc., 2023 WL 3300408, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. May 8, 2023) (quoting Kappel, 914 F.Supp. at 1058); see also Sikhs for Just. v. Nath, 893 F.Supp.2d 598, 621 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (same). How those considerations-known as the Kappel factors-are applied depends on the particular context of the case.
Id. “A court may also properly exercise its staying power when a higher court is close to settling an important issue of law bearing on the action.” Sikhs for Just. v. Nath, 893 F.Supp.2d 598, 622 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).
Reconsideration of a previous Court order is an “extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources.” Sikhs for Just. v. Nath, 893 F.Supp.2d 598, 605 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (quoting Montanile v. NBC, 216 F.Supp.2d 341, 342 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)).
“In addition, a court may also properly exercise its staying power when a higher court is close to settling an important issue of law bearing on the action,” Sikhs for Just. v. Nath, 893 F.Supp.2d 598, 622 (S.D.N.Y. 2012),
The question on a motion to dismiss “is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims.” Sikhs for Justice v. Nath, 893 F.Supp.2d 598, 615 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (quoting Villager Pond, Inc. v. Town of Darien, 56 F.3d 375, 378 (2d Cir. 1995)). “[T]he purpose of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is to test, in a streamlined fashion, the formal sufficiency of the plaintiffs statement of a claim for relief without resolving a contest regarding its substantive merits.” Halebian v. Berv, 644 F.3d 122, 130 (2d Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2000); see also Sikhs for Justicev.Nath, 893 F.Supp.2d 598, 622 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (noting that a court may “properly exercise its staying power when a higher court is close to settling an important issue of law bearing on the action”).
As the parties acknowledged in their submissions, “[r]econsideration of a court's previous order is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources,” and “the standard of review applicable to such a motion is strict.” Sikhs for Justice v. Nath, 893 F.Supp.2d 598, 605 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (citations and quotations omitted); see also Local Rule 6.3. Moreover, the “burden is on the movant to demonstrate that the Court overlooked controlling decisions or material facts that were before it on the original motion, and that might materially have influenced its earlier decision.” Sikhs
“A court may also properly exercise its staying power when a higher court is close to settling an important issue of law bearing on the action.” Sikhs for Just. v. Nath, 893 F.Supp.2d 598, 622 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). The balance of relevant factors weighs in favor of staying all proceedings in this case pending the Supreme Court's decision in Hughes.