Gym Door Repairs, Inc. v. Young Equipment Sales, Inc.

S.D. New York

Gym Door Repairs, Inc. v. Young Equipment Sales, Inc.

DecidedMarch 31, 2023

Docket1:15-cv-04244

StatusUnknown

This text of Gym Door Repairs, Inc. v. Young Equipment Sales, Inc. (Gym Door Repairs, Inc. v. Young Equipment Sales, Inc.) 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

Gym Door Repairs, Inc. v. Young Equipment Sales, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------x : GYM DOOR REPAIRS, INC., et al., : Plaintiffs, : 15-CV-4244 (JGK) (OTW) : -against- : ORDER : GUARDIAN GYM EQUIPMENT, et al., : : Defendants. : -------------------------------------------------------------x ONA T. WANG, United States Magistrate Judge: On July 6, 2021, Guardian filed a motion for an extension of time to include additional exhibits for omitted fees for up to 4 months in the 4th quarters of 2015, 2016, and 2017, that had been previously omitted due to yet another “malfunction in the PCLaw program.” (ECF 1020 at 1). This motion was opposed by both Plaintiffs and the Tri-State Defendants. (ECF 1021, 1023). The Court found that the Guardian Defendants did not even attempt to explain the malfunction, how it caused the alleged omissions, or how they would plan to address the malfunction in future submissions. (ECF 1025 at 2). The Guardian Defendants had years and multiple chances to submit the information needed to support their request. (ECF 1025 at 2). Accordingly, the Court denied the motion on July 15, 2021. (ECF 1025 at 2). In response, the Guardian Defendants filed a letter motion for the Court to reconsider its denial of their motion for supplemental briefing (ECF 1032) and another letter motion for the Court to accept their supplemental exhibits (ECF 1033). The standard for reconsideration is strict, and “will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions . . . that the court overlooked.” Eddystone Rail Co. v. Jamex Transfer Services, 17-CV-1266 (WHP), 2019 WL 181308 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2019). A court may grant reconsideration if a movant “demonstrates an intervening change in controlling law, . . . or the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Id. (internal citations omitted). The Guardian Defendants have

done neither. Accordingly, the Guardian Defendants’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED. The Guardian Defendants’ motion for a status conference is also DENIED. SO ORDERED. s/ Ona T. Wang Dated: March 31, 2023 Ona T. Wang New York, New York United States Magistrate Judge

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 -------------------------------------------------------------x : GYM DOOR REPAIRS, INC., et al., : Plaintiffs, : 15-CV-4244 (JGK) (OTW) : -against- : ORDER : GUARDIAN GYM EQUIPMENT, et al., : : Defendants. : -------------------------------------------------------------x ONA T. WANG, United States Magistrate Judge: On July 6, 2021, Guardian filed a motion for an extension of time to include additional exhibits for omitted fees for up to 4 months in the 4th quarters of 2015, 2016, and 2017, that had been previously omitted due to yet another “malfunction in the PCLaw program.” (ECF 1020 at 1). This motion was opposed by both Plaintiffs and the Tri-State Defendants. (ECF 1021, 1023). The Court found that the Guardian Defendants did not even attempt to explain the malfunction, how it caused the alleged omissions, or how they would plan to address the malfunction in future submissions. (ECF 1025 at 2). The Guardian Defendants had years and multiple chances to submit the information needed to support their request. (ECF 1025 at 2). Accordingly, the Court denied the motion on July 15, 2021. (ECF 1025 at 2). In response, the Guardian Defendants filed a letter motion for the Court to reconsider its denial of their motion for supplemental briefing (ECF 1032) and another letter motion for the Court to accept their supplemental exhibits (ECF 1033). The standard for reconsideration is strict, and “will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions . . . that the court overlooked.” Eddystone Rail Co. v. Jamex Transfer Services, 17-CV-1266 (WHP), 2019 WL 181308 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2019). A court may grant reconsideration if a movant “demonstrates an intervening change in controlling law, . . . or the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Id. (internal citations omitted). The Guardian Defendants have

done neither. Accordingly, the Guardian Defendants’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED. The Guardian Defendants’ motion for a status conference is also DENIED. SO ORDERED. s/ Ona T. Wang Dated: March 31, 2023 Ona T. Wang New York, New York United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Gym Door Repairs, Inc. v. Young Equipment Sales, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gym-door-repairs-inc-v-young-equipment-sales-inc-nysd-2023.