Barilli v. Sky Solar Holdings, Ltd.
- Laura Swain
- 1:17-cv-04572
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Barilli v. Sky Solar Holdings, Judge Swain denied plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider dismissal of claims against three defendants.
The plaintiffs’ motion was denied, leaving undisturbed the earlier dismissal of the complaint against Sky Solar Holdings, Ltd., Roth Capital Partners, LLC, and Northland Securities, Inc.
What happened
In Barilli v. Sky Solar Holdings, plaintiffs asked the court to reconsider its earlier decision dismissing the complaint against Sky Solar Holdings, Ltd., Roth Capital Partners, LLC, and Northland Securities, Inc.
The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy, not a chance to reargue issues or present new theories. Plaintiffs repeated arguments the court had already considered, offered new arguments without identifying a change in controlling law or new evidence, and did not show that the court had overlooked facts or made a clear error.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the motion for reconsideration in its entirety and resolved the motion’s docket entry.
The detailed version
- Barilli v. Sky Solar Holdings, Ltd. · No. 1:17-cv-04572
- Laura Swain
- Dec. 2, 2019
Background
Andrew Barilli and Ronald Pena, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, moved for reconsideration of the court’s May 23, 2019, memorandum opinion and order. That earlier decision dismissed the complaint against Sky Solar Holdings, Ltd., Roth Capital Partners, LLC, and Northland Securities, Inc.
Legal standard
The court stated that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly. A party seeking reconsideration must show an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct a clear error or prevent a manifest injustice. Reconsideration is not a means to relitigate issues, present new theories, or take another opportunity to argue the case.
Court’s analysis
The court found that plaintiffs repeated arguments it had previously considered. It also found that their new arguments were not based on a change in controlling law or newly discovered evidence. Plaintiffs did not identify any facts the court had overlooked or any part of the earlier decision that was clearly erroneous or manifestly unjust.
Disposition
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the motion for reconsideration in its entirety. The court also stated that Docket Entry No. 105 was resolved.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.