Cullum v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts Corp.

Background

Sandra L. Cullum and Deirdre Saleh filed the action without lawyers. In an earlier order dated February 12, 2024, the court dismissed the action with prejudice against all but one defendant under the Federal Arbitration Act, for lack of personal jurisdiction, and for failure to state a claim. The court directed the plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Complaint within 30 days if they wanted to continue litigating against Elisabeth Gale, because proper service had not been completed on her.

The plaintiffs did not file a Second Amended Complaint. Instead, they filed a motion for formal reconsideration of the earlier order.

Motion for Reconsideration

The court treated the filing as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and as a motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3. The court explained that these motions require the movant to show that the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters that had already been presented. Reconsideration is narrowly applied and cannot be used to repeat arguments, present new theories, or offer new evidence in response to the court’s ruling.

The court concluded that the plaintiffs did not meet that standard. First, the plaintiffs mainly repeated allegations from their Amended Complaint, including allegations about defendants’ activities in New York and financial losses allegedly resulting from a fraudulent timeshare scheme, mismanagement, inaccurate accounting, coercive and fraudulent sales tactics, and targeting of elderly citizens. The court said it had considered those allegations previously. Second, the plaintiffs argued for the first time that the arbitration clause in the relevant contract was invalid and unenforceable. The court held that a new argument was not proper grounds for reconsideration. Third, the plaintiffs described later events, including defendants’ failure to respond to a settlement demand and Gale’s alleged efforts to avoid service; the court said those events did not support reconsideration of the earlier order.

Disposition

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration in its entirety. Separately, because the deadline to file a Second Amended Complaint had expired and the plaintiffs had not filed one, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims against Elisabeth Gale without prejudice. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment dismissing the Amended Complaint against Gale without prejudice and to close the case.