Law Offices of Joseph L. Manson III v. Aoki

Background

The plaintiff moved under Southern District of New York Local Rule 6.3 for reconsideration of the court’s January 3, 2020 Memorandum Order. That earlier order denied defendant Keiko Aoki’s motion to compel arbitration and granted Aoki’s motion to stay the proceedings pending arbitration of the plaintiff’s claims.

Standard for Reconsideration

The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy that is generally denied unless the moving party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a clear error or manifest injustice. It also stated that the motion is not a way to relitigate old issues, present new theories, or make a second attempt at arguments that could have been raised earlier.

Court’s Analysis

The plaintiff argued that the court had overlooked the pending motion to disqualify. The court rejected that argument, explaining that the plaintiff had declined to press the issue when opposing Aoki’s motion to compel arbitration, even though that opposition was filed more than a month after the plaintiff filed the disqualification motion. The plaintiff also had permission to seek a stay of Aoki’s motion to compel arbitration but did not use that opportunity to raise the arguments presented for the first time on reconsideration.

The court further found that the plaintiff had identified no controlling authority requiring a different result and had not shown fundamental unfairness, clear error, or manifest injustice. The court also said it was unclear whether it, rather than a court in the jurisdiction where the arbitration would occur, was the proper forum to decide the plaintiff’s disqualification motion.

Disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the January Order. The Memorandum Order resolved docket entry number 58.