throbber
Case 1:16-cv-06280-PAE-KNF Document 108 Filed 08/16/21 Page 1 of 3
`Case 1:16-cv-06280-PAE-KNF Document 108 Filed 08/16/21 Page 1 of 3
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`CCR INTERNATIONAL,INC., et al.,
`
`-V-
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`ELIAS GROUP,LLC,et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ELIAS GROUP, LLC,
`
`Y=
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`CCR DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC., et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`15 Civ. 6563 (PAE)
`
`16 Civ. 6280 (PAE)
`
`ORDER
`
`PAUL A. ENGELMAYER,District Judge:
`
`Plaintiff CCR International (“CCR”) has moved, see Dkt. 273 (“MTR”), for
`
`reconsideration of the Court’s August 6, 2021 decision not to amendits judgment under Rule
`
`60(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Dkt. 272 (“Order”). Defendant Elias Group, LLC
`
`(“Elias”) opposes. Dkt. 274 (“Elias Opp’n”). The Court assumes familiarity with the history of
`
`this litigation.
`
`CCRseeks reconsideration of the decision to deny its motion to amend its judgment
`
`under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). The Court found that CCR had merely quoted factual findings from
`
`the Court’s December 22, 2020 order, Dkt. 251, rather than showing where, earlier in this case,
`
`the parties had litigated CCR’s entitlement to the $150,000, CCR had sought suchrelief, and,
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-06280-PAE-KNF Document 108 Filed 08/16/21 Page 2 of 3
`Case 1:16-cv-06280-PAE-KNF Document 108 Filed 08/16/21 Page 2 of 3
`
`most important, the Court had awarded CCR the $150,000 it seeks from Elias, Order at 2. For
`
`the reasons that follow, the Court again finds that CCR is not entitled to reconsideration.
`CCR’s motion for reconsideration is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and S.D.NY.
`
`Local Civil Rule 6.3. District courts “ha[ve] broad discretion in determining whether to grant a
`
`motion [for reconsideration].” Baker v. Dorfman, 239, F.3d 415, 427 (2d Cir. 2000). A motion
`
`to reconsider “is not a motion in which a movant may reargue those issues already considered
`
`when a party does notlike the way the original motion was resolved.” Evolution Fast Food Gen.
`
`P’ship v. HVFG, LLC, No. 15 Civ. 6624 (DAB), 2018 WL 1779377, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28,
`
`2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The major groundsfor justifying reconsideration are
`
`‘an intervening change in controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct
`
`a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.”” In re Pishevar, No. 19 Misc. 503 (JGK) (SDA),
`
`2020 WL 1862586, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2020) (quoting Terra Sec. ASA Konkursbov.
`
`Citigroup, Inc., 820 F. Supp. 2d 558, 560 (S.D.N_Y. 2011)).
`
`Asto the issue in question, CCR argued in its motion to amend the judgment that because
`
`the Court “did not reject the payment of the $150,000 ... [CCR] understands that the failure to
`
`order Elias to pay the outstanding amount was an ‘oversight or omission.”” Dkt. 268 at 2. In the
`
`MTR, CCR now argues that “Elias stipulated that it had only paid $150,000 of the $300,000
`
`agreed. This Court so ruled. It should amendits judgmentto find that [Elias] owes [CCR]
`
`$150,000.” MTR { 14-15. As proofof this assertion, CCR quotes its complaint, id. {{ 5-6,
`
`and thejoint stipulation of undisputed material facts, id. | 10, to show that CCR “indeed sought
`
`relief on the claim,” id. § 9. CCR argues that because “the operative pleading before the Court,
`
`the Consolidated Complaint,” describes the payment, and the Court “repeated this allegation in
`
`its Order granting Elias Summary Judgment,” the Court found that Elias was “required” to pay
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-06280-PAE-KNF Document 108 Filed 08/16/21 Page 3 of 3
`Case 1:16-cv-06280-PAE-KNF Document 108 Filed 08/16/21 Page 3 of 3
`
`$150,000 following due diligence, and there is an “inference .. . that the parties completed due
`
`diligence,” deciding any inferences in CCR’s favor. Jd. {§ 11-12 (emphasis in original).
`
`The Court does not find reconsideration warranted. CCR has not shown any change of
`
`law, new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent a manifest injustice. Instead,it
`
`merely recapitulates the arguments in the motion to amend that the Court denied. But, as the
`
`Court ruled on that motion, there is no charter here to amenda clerical error or mistake arising
`
`from an oversight by the Court in the preparation of the judgment, because CCR cannot point to
`
`any antecedent ruling in which the Court had awardedit relief on its claim for the $150,000. See
`
`Dkt. 272. On the contrary, when the Court awarded summary judgment to Elias on all claims,
`
`see Dkts. 251, 260, it did not award CCR the $150,000 that it currently seeks, and CCR at no
`
`point challenged the absence of a grant of such relief. Any error here was CCR’s,for failing to
`
`secure such relief during this litigation, not the Court’s in its preparation of the judgment. The
`
`parties’ stipulation to certain facts, and the Court’s quoting of these stipulated facts, is not
`
`tantamount to an award ofreliefjustifying an amendmentof the judgment under Rule 60(a).
`
`The Court accordingly denies the motion for reconsideration. The Clerk of Court is
`
`respectfully directed to close the motion pending at docket 273. This case remains closed.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: August 16, 2021
`New York, New York
`
`Poul A, Coyebray”
`
`
`
`PAUL A. ENGELMAYER
`United States District Judge
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket