Telecom Business Solution, LLC v. Terra Towers Corp.

Opinion

AHO AL, 22 "OVO PUA LAU eh SO a ee OC MEMO ENDORSED [usps sony UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1} DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FLECTRONICALLY FILEL TELECOM BUSINESS SOLUTION, LLC, DOC # LATAM TOWERS, LLC, and AMLQ DATE FILED: 5/1/2024 HOLDINGS (CAY) LTD., Seon No. 22-cv-1761-LAK Petitioners,

MOTION FOR TERRA TOWERS CORP. and TBS RE IDERATI MANAGEMENT, S.A., Respondents. TERRA TOWERS CORP., TBS MANAGEMENT, S.A., and DT HOLDINGS, INC. Cross-Petitioners, Vv. TELECOM BUSINESS SOLUTION, LLC, LATAM TOWERS, LLC, and AMLQ HOLDINGS (CAY) LTD., Cross-Respondents.

Pursuant to 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Respondents/Cross-Petitioners Terra Towers Corp., TBS Management, S.A. (together, “Terra”), and DT Holdings, Inc. (“DTH”), respectfully moves to alter or amend the judgment entered on February 20, 2024, granting Petitioners’ motion to confirm the Second Partial Final Award (“SPFA”) and denying Respondents’ cross-motion to vacate it, and for other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. In support, Terra/DTH submits their Memorandum of Law dated March 18, 2024, and a Declaration in Support, which are being filed contemporaneously with this motion. Dated: Miami, FL March 18, 2024 Respectfully submitted, CAREY RODRIGUEZ LLP By: /s/ Juan J. Rodriguez

Memorandum Endorsement Telecom Bus. Sol. LLC v. Terra Towers Corp., 22-cv-1761 (LAK) The motion for reconsideration (Dkt 220) is denied. “Reconsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingty.”’ Such relief typically is available only where “the movant establishes an intervening change in controlling law, offers newly discovered evidence, demonstrates clear error of law, or shows that relief is necessary to prevent manifest injustice.” Respondents contend that the “Court overlooked critical facts’* but fail to identify any overlooked facts, instead repackaging arguments that the Court rejected previously.’ Respondents argue next that reconsideration is warranted by “[nJewly discovered evidence,” but they fail to identify any such evidence in their motion. Instead, they refer the Court to 229 exhibits (which were not filed properly) filling three bankers boxes. The Court declines to “sift through them to determine if some nugget is buried somewhere in that mountain of papers.”® Last, respondents assert that reconsideration is necessary to prevent manifest injustice. The Court disagrees. Itis long since time that counsel and his clients recognize that they have lost. Their endless repetition is vexatious and inappropriate though they are welcome to putsue any appellate remedies in the appropriate Court. SO ORDERED, / Dated: May 1, 2024 // f | rt Tf 4 fn, ™ Lewis A ala United Statés DistricWIudge Morisseau v. DLA Piper, 532 F. Supp. 2d 595, 598 (8.D.NLY. 2008), aff'd, 355 F. App’x 487 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Inve Transcare Corp., No, 20-ev-06274 (LAK), 2021 WL 5909794, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec, 14, 2021) (citing Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992)). Dkt 221 at 5. £.g., Dkt 221 at 6 ([T]his Court has overlooked that the Tribunal’s misconduct is unequivocally aimed at securing a predetermined outcome... .”). Dkt 221 at 7, Carmel v. CSH & C, 32 F. Supp, 3d 434, 436 (W.D.N.Y. 2014); see United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir, 1991) (“Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.”), The Court notes further that respondents have not attempted to meet the applicable standard for reconsideration on the basis of newly discovered evidence. See Fields v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Ie., No, 03-cv-8363 (SHS), 2004 WL 626180, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar, 30, 2004),