National Labor Relations Board v. New York Party Shuttle, LLC, No. 1:2015mc00233 - Document 24 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)
Court Description: OPINION & ORDER: For the reasons stated above, NYPS' motion for reconsideration is denied, and the Board's motion for entry of a protective order is granted. Accordingly, the Court will file an order consistent with the terms proposed by the Board. (As further set forth in this Order) (Signed by Judge John F. Keenan, Part I, on 11/12/2015) (kl)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
National Labor Relations Board v. New York Party Shuttle, LLC Doc. 24 USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: _________________ DATE FILED: 11/12/2015 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------X -----------------------------------------------------------x NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, : In re FANNIE MAE 2008 SECURITIES : : 08 Civ. 7831 (PAC) LITIGATION : 09 MD 2013 (PAC) Applicant, : : No. 15 Misc. 233 (JFK) : : OPINION & ORDER -against: -----------------------------------------------------------x : OPINION & ORDER NEW YORK PARTY SHUTTLE, LLC, : : Respondent. : HONORABLE PAUL A. CROTTY, United -----------------------------------XStates District Judge: JOHN F. KEENAN, United States District Judge: 1 Before the Court is Respondent New York Party Shuttle, The early years of this decade saw a boom in home financing which was fueled, among LLC’s (“NYPS”) motion seeking reconsideration of the Court’s Augustother things, byorder, asrates andas credit conditions. New lending instruments, such as 27, 2015 low interest well lax Applicant the National Labor subprime mortgages (high Board”) motion for entry of a proposed Relations Board’s (“the credit risk loans) and Alt-A mortgages (low-documentation loans) kept the boom going. Borrowers played a role motion for unmanageable risks on protective order. Upon review, NYPS’ too; they took on reconsideration the assumption the market would continue to entry of a protective is denied, andthat the Board’s motion forrise and that refinancing options would always be order available in the future. Lending discipline was lacking in the system. Mortgage originators did is granted. not Board high-risk this action seeking judicial risk on their books, the The hold thesebrought mortgage loans. Rather than carry the rising enforcement originators duces loans into the secondary mortgage market, August 27, 2015 of a subpoena sold their tecum issued to NYPS. In an often as securitized packages order known as mortgage-backedCourt granted the Board’sgrew almost exponentially. (ECF No. 14), the securities (“MBSs”). MBS markets application But then the directed NYPS In comply with the subpoena. for enforcement and housing bubble burst. to 2006, the demand for housing dropped abruptly In so and home prices Court found light of the changing housing market, banks modified their doing, the began to fall. In that the subpoena was properly issuedlending practices and became unwilling to refinance home mortgages without refinancing. as it relates to a matter under investigation by the Board and is relevant to determining the derivative liability of 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all references cited as “(¶ NYPS. (Id. at are to the NYPS entities that may be associated with _)” or to the “Complaint”1-2.) Amended Complaint, dated June 22, 2009. For purposes of this Motion, all allegations in the Amended Complaint are taken as true. now moves for reconsideration of that decision. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Reconsideration may be appropriate where “the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that . . . might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.” Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). Where no such controlling decisions or data exist, or where the court has considered and rejected the movant’s position, reconsideration should not be granted. E.g., Grand Crossing, L.P. v. U.S. Underwriters Ins. Co., No. 03 Civ. 5429, 2008 WL 4525400, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2008). Here, NYPS points to no new facts or controlling precedent that might reasonably change the Court’s conclusion. Rather, NYPS’ arguments merely restate its contention that the Board lacks a proper purpose for requesting the information sought by the subpoena. Having already considered and rejected that argument, the Court finds no basis to reconsider its decision. See Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012) (recognizing that reconsideration is “not a vehicle for relitigating old issues, presenting the case under new theories, securing a rehearing on the merits, or otherwise taking a second bite at the apple” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Turning to the Board’s proposed protective order, the Court finds that the Board’s proposed language is appropriate and that NYPS’ proposed modifications are unwarranted. 2 While consenting to most of the Board’s proposed order, NYPS seeks the addition of a provision that would delay its response to the subpoena until “14 days from any non-appealable decision of any appeals of the underlying [order] dated August 27, 2015.” (ECF No. 18 at 2.) Thus, in effect, NYPS seeks a stay of the Court’s August 27, 2015 order pending appeal. In evaluating whether a stay is warranted, the court must consider “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether he will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 426 (2009). The party seeking the stay bears the burden of showing that the balance of these factors weighs in favor of granting the stay. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 884 F. Supp. 2d 108, 122 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). Here, NYPS has failed to demonstrate that a stay is appropriate. First, for the reasons discussed above in addressing NYPS’ motion for reconsideration, NYPS’ appeal is not likely to succeed on the merits. Second, NYPS has not demonstrated that it will suffer any irreparable injury absent a stay. Although NYPS vaguely references the potential for harm “to the derivative entities if they are forced to produce 3 .-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- private information" (ECF No. 18 at 3), NYPS fails to explain how the potential for any such harm is left unaddressed by the proposed protective order. Lastly, the Court finds that any further delay pending an appeal would unduly impair the Board's investigation and run contrary to the public interest. The Board's subpoena was issued over seven months ago, and NYPS has failed to demonstrate that any additional delay of its compliance is warranted. For the reasons stated above, NYPS' motion for reconsideration is denied, and the Board's motion for entry of a protective order is granted. Accordingly, the Court will file an order consistent with the terms proposed by the Board. SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York November /'2' 2015 United States Distri-ot Judge 4
]]>
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.
