Tunne v. Discover Financial Services
Mark Tunne v. Discover Financial Services, Inc., d/b/a Discover Card, Inc., et al.
- Clarke
- 1:22-cv-05288
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mark Tunne v. Discover, Judge Clarke denied Tunne’s reconsideration motion after he challenged dismissal of Counts II–VI.
Mark Tunne’s motion for reconsideration was denied, leaving in place the earlier dismissal with prejudice of Counts II through VI; the order also directed termination of docket entries 99 and 109.
What happened
In Mark Tunne v. Discover Financial Services, Inc., Mark Tunne asked the court to reconsider an earlier order dismissing Counts II through VI of his second amended complaint with prejudice. The earlier order adopted a magistrate judge’s amended recommendation.
The court said reconsideration is reserved for situations involving a change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or preventing serious unfairness. It found that Tunne had not shown new facts, clear error, or a change in controlling law affecting those counts. The court also noted that he had not filed timely objections to the amended recommendation, despite being warned that failing to do so would waive the right to object.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke denied the motion for reconsideration and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate docket entries 99 and 109.
The detailed version
- Tunne v. Discover Financial Services · No. 1:22-cv-05288
- Clarke
- Oct. 28, 2025
Background
The court stated that an earlier order, issued on November 18, 2024, adopted Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo’s amended report and recommendation and dismissed with prejudice Counts II through VI of Mark Tunne’s second amended complaint. On April 16, 2025, Tunne filed a motion asking the court to reconsider that order.
Reconsideration standard
The court explained that a motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity to relitigate issues, present new theories, obtain another hearing on the merits, or take a second opportunity to make the same arguments. The moving party has a heavy burden to show an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, clear error, or the need to prevent manifest injustice.
Court’s reasoning
The court held that Tunne did not meet that burden. It found that he had not alleged new facts, clear error, or a change in controlling law bearing on the legal sufficiency of Counts II through VI. The court also noted that the amended report and recommendation gave the parties fourteen days after service to file objections and warned that failing to do so would waive the right to object. Tunne did not file those objections.
Disposition
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke denied Tunne’s motion for reconsideration. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate docket entries 99 and 109. This order addressed the request to reconsider the earlier dismissal; it did not change the prior dismissal with prejudice of Counts II through VI.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.