`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
`
`