Stevens & Company, LLC v. Espat

Background

Jason Espat, who was a defendant, counterclaimant, and third-party plaintiff, moved for reconsideration of the court’s March 28, 2025 Opinion and Order. That earlier order dismissed Espat’s Sixth, Fifteenth, and Sixteenth causes of action and part of his Seventh cause of action in his amended counterclaims and third-party complaint. Espat’s Sixth cause of action concerned what he described as “unlawful non-compete restrictions.”

In the alternative, Espat asked the court to certify the earlier order for an immediate appeal concerning the Sixth cause of action.

Reconsideration Request

The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally limited to an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent serious injustice. It is not a way to relitigate old issues, present new theories, or obtain another hearing on the merits.

The court first held that Espat’s motion was untimely. Under Southern District of New York Local Civil Rule 6.3, a reconsideration motion ordinarily must be served within 14 days after the challenged order. Because the challenged order was entered on March 28, 2025, the deadline was April 11, 2025. Espat filed his motion on April 25, 2025.

Espat relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, which can provide a longer deadline for motions to alter or amend a judgment. The court rejected that argument because Rule 59 applies to a judgment, and no judgment had been entered in this case. The court also noted that Espat conceded this point in his reply memorandum.

The court added that, even if the motion had been timely, it would have failed on the merits. Espat argued that the court had misapplied United States v. Moseley when it concluded that the parties’ contractual agreement selecting New York law should be honored. The court said it had not ignored Moseley and had applied it consistently with decisions by other judges in the district. It further explained that an alleged misapplication of law is generally an issue for an appeal, not reconsideration.

The court also rejected Espat’s reliance on BDO USA, P.C. v. Rojas. In that decision, the court found a New York choice-of-law provision unenforceable where neither party was located in New York, the agreement was negotiated outside New York, and the contract’s subject had no connection to New York. The court distinguished Espat’s case because the plaintiff was based in New York and Espat performed at least some work for the company from New York.

Request for Immediate Appeal

The court separately denied Espat’s request to certify an interlocutory appeal. Such certification requires a controlling legal question, substantial grounds for disagreement about that question, and a showing that an immediate appeal could materially advance the end of the litigation. The party seeking certification must establish all three requirements, and courts also consider the general policy against piecemeal appeals.

The court found that Espat had identified no controlling legal question involving a substantial ground for disagreement. It also concluded that an immediate appeal would unnecessarily delay resolution of the case. The court noted that, if its application of Moseley was erroneous, Espat could raise that issue in an appeal.

Ruling

Judge Liman denied the motion for reconsideration, or alternatively for certification of an interlocutory appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket No. 87.