MPHASIS Corporation v. Rojas
- Jesse Furman
- 1:25-cv-03175
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In MPHASIS Corporation v. Rojas, Judge Furman denied Rojas’s motion to reconsider a preliminary injunction.
Albert Rojas, whose motion for reconsideration and alternative request to modify the preliminary injunction were denied; the preliminary injunction remained in place according to the opinion.
What happened
MPHASIS Corporation v. Rojas concerned Defendant Albert Rojas’s request to reconsider an earlier order granting a preliminary injunction. Rojas had answered the complaint and referred to another preliminary-injunction decision, but the opinion says he did not explain why either point affected the injunction.
The court applied the strict standard for reconsideration motions, which generally does not allow a party to repeat earlier arguments, present new theories, or seek another hearing on the same issues. The court found that Rojas’s motion mostly restated his earlier opposition and that the other court’s decision had no bearing on this case.
Judge Furman denied Rojas’s motion for reconsideration and denied his alternative request to modify the injunction because he provided no basis for modification. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion from the docket.
The detailed version
- MPHASIS Corporation v. Rojas · No. 1:25-cv-03175
- Jesse Furman
- June 13, 2025
Background
Defendant Albert Rojas moved for reconsideration of the Court’s preliminary injunction order. A motion for reconsideration asks the court to revisit an earlier decision. The opinion states that such motions are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3.
Standard
The court explained that the standard for reconsideration is strict. Reconsideration generally is not available to relitigate old issues, present new theories, obtain another hearing on the merits, or fill gaps in a losing motion. The moving party generally must identify controlling decisions or information that the court overlooked.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Rojas’s motion fell far short of that standard. It said the motion merely restated Rojas’s opposition to the preliminary injunction in conclusory terms. Rojas noted that he had answered the complaint, but he did not explain why that filing changed the preliminary-injunction analysis; the court stated that it did not. Rojas also described a recent preliminary-injunction decision from another court in the same district, but the court found that decision had no bearing on or relation to this action.
Rojas alternatively requested a limited modification of the injunction. The court found that he provided no basis for modification.
Disposition
The court denied Rojas’s motion for reconsideration. The clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 208. The opinion does not state that the preliminary injunction itself was dissolved or modified.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.