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, Magistrate Judge Wang denied Rojas’s reconsideration motion because it presented no new facts or law.
Albert Rojas, whose motion for reconsideration was denied; MPHASIS Corporation was the opposing party.
What happened
In MPHASIS Corporation v. Rojas, the court treated Albert Rojas’s filing as a request to reconsider an earlier order rather than as an objection under a separate federal rule. The court did so because that objection was outside the referral and because courts give special flexibility to people without lawyers.
The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy, generally available only for a change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error or serious injustice. It also said reconsideration cannot be used to repeat rejected arguments or raise arguments that could have been made earlier.
Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang denied the motion because it raised no new facts or law and directed the Clerk of Court to close the filing.
The detailed version
- MPHASIS Corporation v. Rojas · No. 1:25-cv-03175
- Jesse Furman
- July 31, 2025
Background
The court reviewed ECF 145, which appeared to combine a motion asking the court to reconsider an earlier order with an objection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). Judge Wang concluded that a Rule 72(a) objection was outside the scope of the referral. Considering the flexibility generally given to people proceeding without lawyers, the court treated ECF 145 as a motion for reconsideration.
Legal standard
The court described reconsideration as an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly. It may be appropriate when the movant identifies an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct a clear error or prevent serious injustice. The court also stated that reconsideration is not a chance to repeat arguments already rejected or make new arguments that could have been presented earlier. The movant must show that the court overlooked controlling legal decisions or factual matters that might reasonably have changed the result.
Ruling
The court stated that the defendant’s motion for reconsideration raised no new facts or law. It therefore denied reconsideration and directed the Clerk of Court to close ECF 145. The opinion was signed by Ona T. Wang, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.