Shim-Larkin v. City of New York, No. 1:2016cv06099 - Document 725 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied. This resolves Dkt. No. 675. The Court finds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). So ordered. re: 675 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 666 Memorandum & Opinion filed by Heena Shim-Larkin. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/23/2020) (rjm)

Download PDF
Shim-Larkin v. City of New York Doc. 725 Case 1:16-cv-06099-AJN-KNF Document 725 Filed 12/23/20 Page 1 of 3 12/23/20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Heena Shim-Larkin, Plaintiff, 16cv6099 (AJN) –v– MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER City of New York, Defendant. ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: On September 28, 2020, the Court issued an opinion denying Plaintiff’s various objections to decisions by Magistrate Judge Fox regarding discovery and sanctions. Dkt. No. 666. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration on October 13, 2020. Dkt. No. 675. As of November 20, 2020, this motion has been fully briefed. Dkt Nos. 695, 703. For the reasons explained below, that motion is DENIED. I. Discussion A motion for reconsideration should be granted only if the movant identifies “an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil of Tartikov, Inc. v. YLL Irrevocable Tr., 729 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir. 2013) (quotations and citation omitted). It 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.’” Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting Sequa Corp. v. GBJ Corp., 156 F.3d 136, 144 (2d Cir. 1998). Moreover, “[t]he decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is within the sound discretion of the district court.” Corines v. Am. Physicians Ins. Tr., 769 F. Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:16-cv-06099-AJN-KNF Document 725 Filed 12/23/20 Page 2 of 3 Supp. 2d 584, 594 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). “Reconsideration of a previous order by the court is an ‘extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources.’” RST (2005) Inc. v. Research in Motion Ltd., 597 F. Supp. 2d 362, 365 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (quoting In re Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc. Sec. Litig., 113 F. Supp. 2d 613, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)). In her briefs, Plaintiff repeats her initial claims, argues that the Court overlooked her arguments and the sources she cited in support, and alleges she was treated unfairly or unequally by the Court. Dkt. No. 676, 703. However, Plaintiff identifies no new evidence or facts unknown to the Court and does not argue an intervening change in controlling law. A motion for reconsideration is not a means for “relitigating old issues” that the Court has already considered, Analytical Surveys, Inc., 684 F.3d at 52, and Plaintiff’s disagreement with the Court’s analysis of her arguments is not a basis for reconsideration. II. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied. This resolves Dkt. No. 675. The Court finds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). SO ORDERED. Dated: December 23, 2020 New York, New York ____________________________________ ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge Case 1:16-cv-06099-AJN-KNF Document 725 Filed 12/23/20 Page 3 of 3

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.