Belliard v. Royal Bank of Scotland Plc

S.D. New York

Belliard v. Royal Bank of Scotland Plc

257 F. Supp. 2d 699, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6363, 2003 WL 1903584

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedApril 16, 2003

Docket00 CIV. 1502(VM)

StatusPublished

This text of 257 F. Supp. 2d 699 (Belliard v. Royal Bank of Scotland Plc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Belliard v. Royal Bank of Scotland Plc, 257 F. Supp. 2d 699, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6363, 2003 WL 1903584 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

DECISION AND ORDER

MARRERO, District Judge.

Plaintiff Porfirio 0. Belliard (“Belliard”) has moved pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) and the Court’s Local Civil Rule 6.3 for reconsideration and reargument with respect to the Court’ Decision and Order dated February 25, 2003 dismissing this action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41 for failure to prosecute. In this connection, the Court has considered Belliard’s motion and defendant’s opposition. Applying the criteria relevant to evaluation of such motions, see Montanile v. National Broadcasting Co., 216 F.Supp.2d 341 (S.D.N.Y.2002), aff 'd, 57 Fed. Appx. 27, 2003 WL 328825 (2d Cir.2003), the Court denies the request.

Belliard does not point to any compelling facts or controlling authority the Court misunderstood or overlooked. *700 Whether or not Belliard’s counsel was personally present at the September 26, 2002 conference with the Court, he provides no sufficient explanation for the repeated instances cited by the Court in which Belli-ard and/or his counsel did not appear at scheduled conferences or depositions or otherwise missed deadlines without explanation and without excusal by the Court.

ORDER

For the reasons stated above and in the Court’s Decision, Belliard’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DECISION AND ORDER

MARRERO, District Judge.

Plaintiff Porfirio 0. Belliard (“Belliard”) has moved pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) and the Court’s Local Civil Rule 6.3 for reconsideration and reargument with respect to the Court’ Decision and Order dated February 25, 2003 dismissing this action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41 for failure to prosecute. In this connection, the Court has considered Belliard’s motion and defendant’s opposition. Applying the criteria relevant to evaluation of such motions, see Montanile v. National Broadcasting Co., 216 F.Supp.2d 341 (S.D.N.Y.2002), aff 'd, 57 Fed. Appx. 27, 2003 WL 328825 (2d Cir.2003), the Court denies the request.

Belliard does not point to any compelling facts or controlling authority the Court misunderstood or overlooked. *700 Whether or not Belliard’s counsel was personally present at the September 26, 2002 conference with the Court, he provides no sufficient explanation for the repeated instances cited by the Court in which Belli-ard and/or his counsel did not appear at scheduled conferences or depositions or otherwise missed deadlines without explanation and without excusal by the Court.

ORDER

For the reasons stated above and in the Court’s Decision, Belliard’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 F. Supp. 2d 699, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6363, 2003 WL 1903584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/belliard-v-royal-bank-of-scotland-plc-nysd-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack