Mphasis Corporation v. Rojas
- Jesse Furman
- 1:25-cv-03175
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Mphasis Corporation v. Albert Rojas, Judge Furman denied Rojas’s motion to reconsider his civil-contempt ruling.
Albert Rojas’s request for reconsideration was denied, leaving the earlier civil-contempt ruling unaltered; Mphasis Corporation was the opposing party.
What happened
In Mphasis Corporation v. Albert Rojas, the court considered Albert Rojas’s request to reconsider an earlier order holding him in civil contempt for repeatedly violating court orders. Rojas was proceeding without a lawyer.
Rojas largely repeated arguments he had made before, including that materials he shared were not confidential because the laptop used for the materials belonged to QBE rather than Mphasis Corporation.
Judge Furman applied the strict standard for reconsideration and denied Rojas’s motion. 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
- Aug. 19, 2026
Background
On August 6, 2026, the court issued an opinion and order adopting a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. That earlier order held Defendant Albert Rojas in civil contempt for repeated violations of court orders. Rojas proceeded without a lawyer in this matter.
Motion for Reconsideration
Rojas moved for reconsideration of the earlier civil-contempt ruling. The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy and generally is not available to relitigate old issues, present new theories, obtain a rehearing, or take another attempt at arguments already rejected. A motion ordinarily must identify controlling decisions or facts that the court overlooked.
The court found that Rojas’s motion did not meet that strict standard. In particular, he largely repeated arguments he had previously made without success, including his argument that the materials he shared were not confidential because the laptop on which he worked belonged to QBE rather than Mphasis Corporation.
Ruling
Judge Jesse M. Furman denied Rojas’s motion for reconsideration. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion identified as ECF No. 572.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.