Pearlstein v. Blackberry Limited

Background

The court had previously accepted Magistrate Judge Parker’s Report and Recommendation concerning Defendants’ motion on the pleadings and dismissed the claims of Additional Plaintiffs Yong M. Cho and Batuhan Ulug. The earlier order concluded that Judge Griesa’s prior orders granting Defendants’ first motion to dismiss were final as to Cho and Ulug because they did not add their names to the Lead Plaintiffs’ timely notice of appeal.

Cho and Ulug moved for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) and Local Rule 6.3. They argued that a footnote in Cohen v. UBS Financial Services, Inc. did not impose particular requirements for notices of appeal in class and collective actions. They relied on their counsel’s later investigation into that case, including information about its procedural history and oral argument.

Legal standard

The court described reconsideration as an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly. Under Local Rule 6.3, reconsideration requires the movant to identify controlling law or factual matters that the court overlooked and that could reasonably be expected to change the result. The recognized grounds include an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice. The rule is not a substitute for an appeal or an opportunity to present arguments that could have been made earlier.

Analysis

The court first determined that the motion was timely because the September 24 dismissal order did not result in entry of judgment until December 16, and the court treated the motion as one seeking reconsideration of an order resulting in judgment.

The court then denied reconsideration. First, Cho and Ulug conceded that no intervening change in controlling law supported their request. The court also concluded that the earlier order and Magistrate Judge Parker’s recommendation had already discussed Cohen, so the Additional Plaintiffs could not show that the court had overlooked relevant law or facts. Their later investigation into Cohen reflected a failure to conduct earlier due diligence, not a basis for reconsideration.

Second, the court found no new evidence. The information about Cohen consisted of additional details and legal arguments that could have been presented earlier, rather than evidence that was newly discovered or unavailable through due diligence.

Finally, the court found that Cho and Ulug had not shown clear error or manifest injustice. Their previously presented arguments and reliance on case law already addressed did not meet that standard.

Disposition

Judge Colleen McMahon denied the motion for reconsideration and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Docket Number 409. The opinion did not alter the earlier dismissal of Cho and Ulug’s claims.