Valdez v. Enlarged City School District of Middletown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FALLON VALDEZ, Plaintiff, NOTICE OF MOTION - against - ENLARGED CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF Civil Action No. MIDDLETOWN, KAREN MARCONI, AND RACHEL 7:21-CV-09261 (KMK) KOONTZ, Defendants.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon all prior pleadings and proceedings had herein, and pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.3 of the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, Defendants ENLARGED CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF MIDDLETOWN, KAREN MARCONI and RACHEL KOONTZ hereby move this Court, before the Honorable Kenneth M. Karas, United States District Court Judge, at the United States Courthouse located at 300 Quarropas Street, White Plains, New York 10601, at such time as to be determined by this Court, to reconsider that part of the Court’s Opinion and Order dated March 28, 2023 that denied the Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Title VII claim and claims against the individual Defendants under Section 1981 and Section 1983. The basis for this motion for reconsideration is set forth in the accompanying memorandum of law. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that Plaintiff’s opposing papers, if any, shall be served upon Defendants’ counsel on or before April 21, 2023; and PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that Defendants’ reply papers, if any, shall be served upon Plaintiff’s counsel on or before April 28, 2023. Dated: April 7, 2023 Respectfully submitted, BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC

By: he: Howard M. Miller, Esq. Jacqueline A. Giordano, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants 1010 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200 Garden City, New York 11530 Email: hmiller@bsk.com jgiordano@bsk.com TO: Gregory R. Preston, Esq. PRESTON & WILKINS, LLC Attorneys for Plaintiff 3000 Hempstead Turnpike, Suite 317 Levittown, New York 11756 Email: gpreston@pwlawllc.com for reconsideration are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3, which are meant to the finality of decisions and to prevent the practice of a losing party examining a decision and then plugging the gaps of a los with additional matters.” Arthur Glick Truck Sales, Inc. v. Stuphen E. Corp., 965 F. Supp. 2d 402, 404 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) omitted), aff'd, 577 F. App’x 11 (2d Cir. 2014). The standard for such motions 1s “‘strict” and “should not be granted wher moving party seeks solely to relitigate an issue already decided.” Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995) also In re Gen. Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litig., No. 14-MD-2543, 2017 WL 3443623, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2017) (“It is v that the rules permitting motions for reconsideration must be narrowly construed and strictly applied so as to avoid arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the [cJourt.” (citation omitted)); Leith v. Emerson, No. 05-CV-786 7 WL 9818914, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2007) (“Rule 6.3 is narrowly construed and strictly applied in order to discourage from making repetitive arguments on issues that have been thoroughly [considered] by the court.” (quotation marks omitted may not “rely upon facts, issues, or arguments that were previously available but not presented to the court.” Indergit v. Aid Corp., 52 F. Supp. 3d 522, 523 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). Nor is a motion for reconsideration “the proper avenue for the submissiot material.” Sys. Mgmt. Arts Inc. v. Avesta Techs., Inc., 106 F. Supp. 2d 519, 521 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). “Rather, to be entitled to a movant must demonstrate that the Court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before 1 underlying motion, which, had they been considered might reasonably have altered the result reached by the [C]ourt.” Arthur 965 F. Supp. 2d at 405 (citation omitted); Shrader, 70 F.3d at 257 (same). In other words, “[a] motion for reconsideration be granted only when the [movant] identifies an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or th to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Alvarez v. City of New York, No. 11-CV-5464, 2017 WL 6033425, at *2 Dec. 5, 2017) (quoting Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil of Tartikov, Inc. v. YLL Irrevocable Tr., 729 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir. 2013 also Intergit, 52 F. Supp. 3d at 523 (same). Motion merely rehashes arguments that the Court has already considered in deciding their Motion To Dismiss and no valid basis for reconsideration. See In re Gen. Motors, 2017 WL 3443623, at *1 (“It is well established that the rules motions for reconsideration must be narrowly construed and strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive arguments on issues been considered fully by the [clourt.” (citation omitted)); Leith, 2007 WL 9818914, at *2 (“Rule 6.3 1s narrowly construed strictly applied in order to discourage litigants from making repetitive arguments on issues that have been thoroughly [considere court.” (quotation marks omitted)). Motion is denied. ORDERED. IV, MM