Simpson v. Chassen

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK wee KX JEFFREY SIMPSON, : Plaintiff, : 25-CV-4004 (JMF) -v- : ORDER

JARED CHASSEN et al., : Defendants. : wee KX JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: On June 27, 2025, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant Jared Chassen’s request for sanctions and/or fees and costs. See ECF No. 31. On July 25, 2025, Plaintiff submitted a motion for reconsideration of that Order. ECF Nos. 38, 39. As Plaintiff presents no valid grounds for reconsideration, the motion is DENIED. See, e.g., Analytical Survs., Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012) (“It is well-settled that [a motion for reconsideration] is not a vehicle for relitigating old issues, presenting the case under new theories, securing a rehearing on the merits, or otherwise taking a second bite at the apple. Rather, the standard for granting a... motion for reconsideration is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked.” (cleaned up)). In the alternative, Plaintiff seeks a stay of briefing on the proper amount of attorney’s fees and costs, pending a decision in a separate bankruptcy appeal. See ECF No. 39, at 3. That bankruptcy proceeding, however, has no bearing on Chassen’s request for costs and attorney’s fees in this case. Plaintiff's request is accordingly DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF Nos. 38 and 39. SO ORDERED. Dated: July 28, 2025 New York, New York ESSE RMAN nited States District Judge