Oguejiofo et al v. Open Text Corporation, No. 1:2009cv01278 - Document 60 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)

Court Description: OPINION. Upon the facts and conclusions set forth above, Defendant's motion for reconsideration is denied. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 9/4/10) (rjm)
Download PDF
Oguejiofo et al v. Open Text Corporation Doc. 60 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---x DOMINIC OGUEJIOFO and PIMA SYSTEMS, Plaintiffs, 09 Civ. 1278 (RWS) -aga OPINION OPEN TEXT CORPORATION, Defendant. --x A P PEA RAN C E S: At for Pla iffs MADUEGBUNA COOPER LLP 110 Wall Street, 11th Floor New York, NY 10005 By: Samuel O. Maduegbuna, Esq. At LOEB & LOEB LLP 345 Park Avenue New York, NY 10154 By: Manny J. iro, Esq. LOEB & LOEB LLP 321 North Cl Street, Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60654 By: Timothy J. Carroll, Esq. Dockets.Justia.com Sweet, D.J. Defendant Open Text Corporation ("Open Text" or moved the "Defendant") 6.3 1 for recons 1 Rule pursuant to Local I ion of ion of s Court/s ing Plaintiff Dominic Opinion l dated May 10 1 2010 1 Oguejiofo/s ("Oguejiofo" or the "Plaintiff") motion for leave to amend complaint. Upon the ts and conclusions set forth below l Defendantls motion is denied. Prior Proceedings The s and prior proceedings M]セ set forth in 1 in the Courtls prior Opinions. iofo v. ¢ 1904022 1 at *1 Opinion"); I iofo V. May 10 Opinion l Plaintif "May 10 'I No, 09 Civ. 1278 1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 141 2009). I See No. 09 Civ. 1278 1 2010 WL (S.D.N.Y. May 10 1 2010) 2009 WL 3334782 1 at *1-*2 alteration this case are In the motion for reconsideration or the October 141 2009 Opinion was denied l Plaintiffs l motion for leave to amend was denied as to Pima Systems ("Pima") and granted as to Oguejiofol Defendantls cross-mot to compel arbitration was denied as to 1 as moot as to Pima, and Defendant's Oguejiofo and various mot to strike were denied. Defendant now seeks reconsideration of the portion of May 10 Opinion for leave to amend. ing Oguejiofo's motion The instant motion was marked ly submitted on June 9, 2010. Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration is Denied To prevail on a mot Local controll for reconsiderat 1 Rule 6.3, "'the moving party must trate law or factual matters put before the underlying motion that court on movant believes court overlooked and that might reasonably be expect the court's decision.'ff to alter Word v. Croce, No. 01 Civ. 9614, 2004 WL 434038, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2004) セ]M」NL under (quoting Parri v. Sollecito, 253 F. Supp. 2d 713, 715 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)) i see also Williams v. New York ci 219 F.R.D. 78, 83 ' t of Corr., (S.D.N.Y. 2003) i Borochoff v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, No. 07 Civ. 5574, 2008 WL 3466400, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2008) ("The major justifying reconsideration are 'an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to 2 correct a c error or prevent mani st injustice.'ff (quoting ï½¾ï½ ï½©ï½ ï½´ï½¬ï¼®ï½ ï½¤ï½¶ï½ ï½¡ï¼§ï½ ï½¥ï½¯ï½®ï½ ï¼¬ï¼  956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992))). "Reconsideration a court's previous order is an 'extraordinary remedy to be employed in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources.'" Montanile v. Nat'l Broad. Co., 216 F. Supp. 2d 341, 342 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (quoting In re Health Supp. 2d 613, 614 . Inc. Sec. Lit ., 113 F. (S.D.N.Y. 2000)). In the May 10 Opinion, this Court amendment by Pima would be arbitration clause of the d that any ile, in light of stributor agreement between Open Text's predecessor in interest, Hummingbird Ltd., and Pima (the "Distributor Agreement"), which divests the Court of subject matter jurisdiction over Pima's claim. 10 on, 2010 WL 1904022, at *3. See May However, the motion to amend was granted as to Oguejiofo, because the Distributor Agreement was deemed not to apply to Oguej a to the Distributor Agreement. , who was not In a footnote, it was noted that although Oguejiofo might have disregarded Pima's corporate identity in his previous eadings and statements, Open Text did not argue in its opposition to Oguejiofo's motion to amend that the Distributor Agreement 3 Defendant also contends that the Court led to 's potential claims consider its argument that Oguej However, these arguments were previously were futi litigated and resolved in the May 10 Opinion. A motion for reconsideration may not be used to relitigate issues already decided by the Court. See Shrader v. CSX Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). Defendant fails to demonstrate that Court overlooked any controlling sions or factual matters that were put before it on underlying motion. Accordingly, Defendant has led to satisfy standard of Local Civil Rule 6.3. Conclusion Upon the facts and conclusions set forth above, Defendant's motion for reconsideration is denied. It is so ordered. 1, New York, NY September 2010 ï¾·ï½¾ï¼­ï½ ï½ ï½ ï½ ï¼  5 W. SWEET U.S.D.J.