Cullum v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts Corp.

S.D. New York

Cullum v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts Corp.

DecidedMarch 7, 2025

Docket1:22-cv-09700

StatusUnknown

This text of Cullum v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts Corp. (Cullum v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts Corp.) 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

Cullum v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts Corp., (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SANDRA L. CULLUM and DEIRDRE SALEH, Plaintiffs, -v- WYNDHAM HOTELS & RESORTS CORP., 1:22-CV-09700-LTS-SN WYNDHAM DESTINATIONS INC., MR. GEOFFREY A. BALLOTTI, WYNDHAM HOTELS (WH) & RESORTS, INC., MS. ELISABETH GALE, DBA WYNDHAM CORPORATE OFFICE & HEADQUARTERS, BROADRIDGE CORPORATE ISSUER SOLUTIONS, Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiffs filed this action pro se. By order dated February 12, 2024, the Court dismissed this action with prejudice against all but one Defendant (1) pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. section 1 et seq., (2) for lack of personal jurisdiction, and (3) for failure to state a claim. (Docket entry no. 49 (the “Order”).) On March 4, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a “motion request for formal reconsideration” of the Order. (Docket entry no. 50 (the “First Motion for Reconsideration”).) After the Court denied the First Motion for Reconsideration (docekt entry no. 52), Plaintiffs filed a submission, styled as a Notice of Appeal, “to respectfully request the reconsideration of the recent dismissal of [their] case” (docket entry no. 54 (the “Second Motion for Reconsideration”) at 2). To the extent that the Court liberally construes the Notice of Appeal as another motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3 (see Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006)), the Court denies the Second Motion for Reconsideration because a “litigant is entitled to a single motion for reconsideration.” Guang Ju Lin v. United States, No. 13-CV-7498-SHS, 2015 WL 747115, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2015). Successive motions for reconsideration are not permitted because a “Court must narrowly construe and strictly apply Local Rule 6.3, so as to avoid duplicative rulings on previously considered

issues[.]” Montanile v. Nat’l Broad. Co., 216 F. Supp. 2d 341, 342 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). Plaintiffs already made the arguments raised in the Second Motion in their First Motion for reconsideration, which was denied on the grounds that they had shown no controlling decisions or facts overlooked in the Order dismissing the action. The Second Motion for Reconsideration is denied. This order resolves docket entry no. 54. The Clerk of Court is also respectfully directed to mail Plaintiffs, at the addresses below, copies of this Order. SO ORDERED.

Dated: New York, New York March 7, 2025 /s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN United States District Judge Mail to: Sandra L. Cullum 2770 West 5th Ave., Apt. 7A Brooklyn, NY 11224

Deirdre Saleh 2675 W. 36th St., Apt. 1E Brooklyn, NY 11224

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SANDRA L. CULLUM and DEIRDRE SALEH, Plaintiffs, -v- WYNDHAM HOTELS & RESORTS CORP., 1:22-CV-09700-LTS-SN WYNDHAM DESTINATIONS INC., MR. GEOFFREY A. BALLOTTI, WYNDHAM HOTELS (WH) & RESORTS, INC., MS. ELISABETH GALE, DBA WYNDHAM CORPORATE OFFICE & HEADQUARTERS, BROADRIDGE CORPORATE ISSUER SOLUTIONS, Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiffs filed this action pro se. By order dated February 12, 2024, the Court dismissed this action with prejudice against all but one Defendant (1) pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. section 1 et seq., (2) for lack of personal jurisdiction, and (3) for failure to state a claim. (Docket entry no. 49 (the “Order”).) On March 4, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a “motion request for formal reconsideration” of the Order. (Docket entry no. 50 (the “First Motion for Reconsideration”).) After the Court denied the First Motion for Reconsideration (docekt entry no. 52), Plaintiffs filed a submission, styled as a Notice of Appeal, “to respectfully request the reconsideration of the recent dismissal of [their] case” (docket entry no. 54 (the “Second Motion for Reconsideration”) at 2). To the extent that the Court liberally construes the Notice of Appeal as another motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3 (see Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006)), the Court denies the Second Motion for Reconsideration because a “litigant is entitled to a single motion for reconsideration.” Guang Ju Lin v. United States, No. 13-CV-7498-SHS, 2015 WL 747115, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2015). Successive motions for reconsideration are not permitted because a “Court must narrowly construe and strictly apply Local Rule 6.3, so as to avoid duplicative rulings on previously considered

issues[.]” Montanile v. Nat’l Broad. Co., 216 F. Supp. 2d 341, 342 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). Plaintiffs already made the arguments raised in the Second Motion in their First Motion for reconsideration, which was denied on the grounds that they had shown no controlling decisions or facts overlooked in the Order dismissing the action. The Second Motion for Reconsideration is denied. This order resolves docket entry no. 54. The Clerk of Court is also respectfully directed to mail Plaintiffs, at the addresses below, copies of this Order. SO ORDERED.

Dated: New York, New York March 7, 2025 /s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN United States District Judge Mail to: Sandra L. Cullum 2770 West 5th Ave., Apt. 7A Brooklyn, NY 11224

Deirdre Saleh 2675 W. 36th St., Apt. 1E Brooklyn, NY 11224

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Cullum v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts Corp., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cullum-v-wyndham-hotels-resorts-corp-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack