INTL FCStone Markets, LLC v. Intercambio Mexicano de Comercio S.A. de C.V.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK en nnn nn ene nntaneencnenn INTL FCSTONE MARKETS, LLC, : > ORDER DENYING Plaintiff, : DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR v. > ENTRY OF AN AMENDED : JUDGMENT INTERCAMBIO MEXICANO DE COMERCIA : S.A. de C.V., : 18 Civ. 1004 (AKH) Defendant. : penne □□□ eee ei □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, U.S.D.S.: Defendant Intercambio Mexicano de Comercia 8.A. de C.V. filed a motion for entry of an Amended Judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) requesting | grant its motion for summary judgment, which I previously denied. “Although Rule 59(e) does not prescribe specific grounds for granting a motion to alter” or amend a judgment, the Second Circuit has held “that district courts may alter or amend judgment to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.” Munafo v. Metro. Transp. Auth,, 381 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir, 2004) (citation omitted). “A Rule 59(e) motion, however, ‘may not be used to relitigate old matters, or raise arguments .. . that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.’” Bonded Concrete, Inc. v. D.A. Collins Const. Co., 29 F. App’x 725, 726 (2d Cir. 2002) (quoting Arthur R. Miller, et al., Fed. Practice & Procedure § 2810.1 at 127-28 (2d ed. 1995). Here, Defendant’s motion merely repeats the same arguments it previously raised, see ECF Nos. 141, 149, 151, Oral Arg. Tr. at 10-38, before I denied Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment and entered final judgment in favor of Plaintiff.

Accordingly, Defendant’s instant Rule 59(e) motion is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 158. SO ORDERED. “4 A WY £) a \v ff \ it je weer afirceon eenctanenanpypenici- tent ® JO phe gle> Dated: October & , 2024 ( jh YW f7e wd sa New York, New York / ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN i United States District Judge