Merhi v. Bullion Exchanges, LLC

Background

Zaher Merhi moved for reconsideration of the Court’s February 10, 2025 decision granting summary judgment to Bullion Exchanges, LLC and Bullion Exchange, LLC, which the opinion collectively calls “Bullion.” Summary judgment is a decision that resolves claims when the record shows there is no genuine dispute requiring a trial. The opinion also lists Bullion as a cross-claimant against FedEx Corporation, but it does not rule on that cross-claim.

A motion for reconsideration asks a court to revisit an earlier decision. The Court explained that this remedy is used sparingly and generally requires an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct a clear error or prevent serious unfairness. The Court also emphasized that reconsideration cannot be used simply to obtain another opportunity to present arguments.

Merhi’s Arguments and the Court’s Analysis

Merhi first argued that his negligence-based claims were adequately pleaded because of his longstanding prior relationship with Bullion and Bullion’s specific promise that he would receive the gold if he allowed it to be shipped instead of picking it up in person.

The Court rejected that argument. It reiterated that Bullion breached no duty by shipping Merhi’s parcel with FedEx and that Bullion’s failure to insure the package lacked a causal connection to Merhi’s loss. The Court also found that the deposition testimony Merhi cited did not show an explicit agreement that Bullion would obtain insurance. Although New York recognizes a claim for negligent performance of a contract, the Court concluded that Merhi had not adequately pleaded the elements of negligence.

Merhi also argued, for the first time, that he should be allowed to amend the complaint to add a breach-of-contract claim. The Court noted that amendment may be denied because of undue delay or undue prejudice. Here, discovery had closed, the defendants had filed for summary judgment, and nearly two years had passed since the original complaint was filed. The Court further found that Merhi’s failure to plead a contract claim had affected the litigation by excluding relevant subjects from discovery. Allowing the new claim would require reopening discovery and impose considerable costs on Bullion. The Court also stated that a change of counsel, even when prior counsel was allegedly negligent, generally was not sufficient justification for an amendment after such a delay.

Ruling

The Court denied Merhi’s request to reinstate his negligence-based claims. It also denied Merhi’s request for leave to amend the complaint to add a breach-of-contract claim. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket Number 69. The opinion does not state a separate disposition of Bullion’s cross-claim against FedEx Corporation.