Sklodowska-Grezak v. Stein et al, No. 1:2015cv01670 - Document 108 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 107 MOTION to Strike Document No. [#37 and #67]. filed by Grazyna Sklodowska-Grezak, 105 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 103 Memorandum & Opinion filed by Grazyna Sklodowska-Grezak, 106 MOTION to Stay. filed by Grazyna Sklodowska-Grezak. "The standard for granting [a motion for reconsideration] is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked." Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). The plaintiff has failed to make such a showing, and has not pointed to any information that "might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by th e court." Id. The motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 105, is therefore denied. The plaintiff has also filed a motion to strike the defendants motions to dismiss. Those motions have already been decided, and the plaintiffs motion is therefor e denied as moot. The plaintiff has failed to show what irreparable injury would result from the dismissal of her case in this court, which dismissal was thoroughly justified. The application for a stay, ECF No. 106, is therefore denied. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 4/5/2017) (cf)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Sklodowska-Grezak v. Stein et al Doc. 108 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK GRAZYNA SKLOWDOWSKA-GREZAK, 15-cv-1670 Plaintiff, - against JUDITH A. STEIN, PH.D, ET AL., MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendants. JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge: The Court has received several motions filed by the plaintiff, including motions for reconsideration of the Court’s Order denying the plaintiff’s motion to reopen the case, ECF No. 103; to strike the defendants’ motions to dismiss, ECF Nos. 37 and 67; and for a stay of the Court’s Order dismissing the case, ECF No. 98. See ECF Nos. 105-107 (plaintiff’s motions). “The standard for granting [a motion for reconsideration] is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked.” Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). The plaintiff has failed to make such a showing, and has not pointed to any information that “might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.” Id. The motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 105, is therefore denied. The plaintiff has also filed a motion to strike the defendants’ motions to dismiss. Those motions have already been decided, and the plaintiff’s motion is therefore denied as moot. To the extent that the motion is intended as one for reconsideration of the Court’s order granting those motions and dismissing the case, ECF No. 98, for the reasons explained above, that application is also denied. Dockets.Justia.com Finally, the plaintiff seeks a stay pending the disposition of a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. ECF No. 106. That application is denied. The plaintiff has failed to show a likelihood of success on any petition for a writ of mandamus. Moreover, the plaintiff has failed to show any likelihood of irreparable injury if the stay is not granted. See McNamee v. Clemens, 2014 WL 1682025, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. April 28, 2014) (setting out the factors to be considered by the Court in analyzing a motion for a stay pending the outcome of an application for a writ of mandamus) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 62). The petitioner’s case has been dismissed and she is free to file any available appeal in the Court of Appeals and to seek expedited review in that Court. The plaintiff has failed to show what irreparable injury would result from the dismissal of her case in this court, which dismissal was thoroughly justified. The application for a stay, ECF No. 106, is therefore denied. SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York April 5, 2017 ___/s/________________________ John G. Koeltl United States District Judge
]]>
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.
