Keitel et al v. D'Agostino, Sr. et al, No. 1:2021cv08537 - Document 91 (S.D.N.Y. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER denying 89 Motion for Reconsideration re 89 FIRST MOTION for Reconsideration re; 86 Notice (Other), Notice to Attorney to Re-File Document - Deficient Docket Entry Error,, . filed by Frederick J. Keitel, III, Fred erick J Keitel, Florida Capital Management LLC, 84 Order on Motion for Leave to File Document. On June 1, 2022, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint or substitute new motions p apers. Docket No. 84. On June 14, 2022, Plaintiffs submitted a motion for reconsideration of that Order. Docket No. 88. As Plaintiffs present no valid grounds for reconsideration, the motion is DENIED. See, e.g., Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Par tners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012) ("It is wellsettled that [a motion for 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 s econd bite at the apple. Rather, 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." (internal quotation marks, citations, ellipsis, and alterations omitted)). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 88. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 6/21/2022) (kv)

Download PDF
Keitel et al v. D'Agostino, Sr. et al Doc. 91 Case 1:21-cv-08537-JMF Document 91 Filed 06/21/22 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : FREDERICK J. KEITEL, III et al., : : Plaintiffs, : : -v: : : THOMAS B. D'AGOSTINO, SR. et al., : : Defendants. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X 21-CV-8537 (JMF) ORDER JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: On June 1, 2022, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint or substitute new motions papers. Docket No. 84. On June 14, 2022, Plaintiffs submitted a motion for reconsideration of that Order. Docket No. 88. 1 As Plaintiffs present no valid grounds for reconsideration, the motion is DENIED. See, e.g., Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012) (“It is wellsettled that [a motion for 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. Rather, 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.” (internal quotation marks, citations, ellipsis, and alterations omitted)). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 88. SO ORDERED. Dated: June 21, 2022 New York, New York __________________________________ JESSE M. FURMAN United States District Judge 1 Although the motion is accompanied by an affidavit, see ECF No. 89, Local Civil Rule 6.3 prohibits affidavits on a motion for reconsideration “unless directed by the Court.” Dockets.Justia.com

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.