Cirrex Systems LLC v. Infraredx, Inc., No. 1:2010cv03952 - Document 37 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER re: 35 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 34 Memorandum & Opinion, (August 31, 2010 order transferring this action to the District of Massachusetts). Cirrex's September 14, 2010 motion for reconsideration is denied. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 9/17/10) (db)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Cirrex Systems LLC v. Infraredx, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------X : CIRREX SYSTEMS LLC, : Plaintiff and : Counterclaim-Defendant, : : -v: : INFRAREDX, INC., : Defendant and : Counterclaim-Plaintiff. : : ----------------------------------------X APPEARANCES Doc. 37 10 Civ. 3952 (DLC) MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER For Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant: Richard C. Pettus Scott Kolassa King & Spalding LLP 1185 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 For Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff: Eric Seiler Hallie B. Levin Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman LLP 1633 Broadway New York, NY 10019 Joseph Hynds Nancy Linck Jason Shapiro Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck 1425 K Street N.W. Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 DENISE COTE, District Judge: On September 14, 2010, plaintiff Cirrex Systems LLC (“Cirrex”) timely filed a motion pursuant to Local Civil Rule Dockets.Justia.com 6.3 for reconsideration of the August 31, 2010 Opinion granting defendant InfraReDx, Inc.’s (“InfraReDx”) July 6, 2010 motion to transfer this patent infringement action to the District of Massachusetts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). See Cirrex Systems LLC v. InfraReDx, Inc., No. 10 Civ. 3952(DLC), 2010 WL 3431165 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2010) (“August 31 Opinion”). The standard for reconsideration is strict. “Generally, motions for reconsideration are not granted unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked -- matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.” In re BDC 56 LLC, 330 F.3d 111, 123 (2d Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). “[A] motion to reconsider should not be granted where the moving party seeks solely to relitigate an issue already decided.” Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). Likewise, a party moving for reconsideration may not “advance new facts, issues, or arguments not previously presented to the Court.” Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Stroh Cos., Inc., 265 F.3d 97, 115 (2d Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). The decision to grant or deny the motion for reconsideration is within “the sound discretion of the district court.” Aczel v. Labonia, 584 F.3d 52, 61 (2d Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Cirrex’s motion for reconsideration does not meet this standard. Cirrex fails to identify any facts or legal authority 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
