The Avon Company v. Fareva Morton Grove, Inc.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK nnn enna + THE AVON COMPANY f/k/a NEW AVON LLC ©: and LG H&H CO., LTD f/k/fa LG HOUSEHOLD & : ORDER HEALTHCARE, LTD., : | : 22 Civ. 4724 (AKH) Plaintiffs, -against-

FAREVA MORTON GROVE, INC, and FAREVA S.A. Defendants. ee ee ee ee eee nse ee xX ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, U.S.D.J.: Fareva’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 340) is denied, “A motion for reconsideration is not a motion to reargue those issues already considered when a party does not like they way the original motion was resolved.” See Lowinger v. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC (In re Facebook, Inc., [PO Sec. & Derivative Litig., 43 F. Supp. 3d 369, 374 (S.D.N-Y. 2014), Moreover, “the standard for granting a motion for reconsideration is strict, ad reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked.” Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, LP, 684 F.3d 36, 41 (2d Cir. 2012). Fareva has failed to meet these strictures. Instead, it seeks to reargue issues raised—and rejected—in its original brief in support of its motion for summary judgment because it wishes for a different outcome as to the status of Section 13 damages. As such, Fareva has failed to meet its burden, and the motion is denied.

The Clerk of Court shall terminate ECF No. 340

Dated: May 15, 2024 i MAA fc ‘ Pe (——: mene New York, New York XL.VIN K. HELLERSTEIN United States District Judge