Cunningham v. Cornell University

Background

The court had previously granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the court concludes that the evidence does not present a legally sufficient dispute for a trial. Among the claims resolved in defendants’ favor was plaintiffs’ claim concerning administrative fees and recordkeeping fees for the Cornell University Retirement Plan for the Employees of the Endowed Colleges at Ithaca and the Cornell University Tax Deferred Annuity Plan.

Plaintiffs then moved for partial reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) and Local Civil Rule 6.3. They argued that defendants’ expert, Glenn Poehler, had produced calculations after previously denying that the calculations existed. According to plaintiffs, the calculations showed that Caltech’s recordkeeping fees were approximately $40 per participant per year, lower than the fees Cornell paid, and that this information supported reconsideration of the earlier ruling.

Legal standard

The court explained that reconsideration motions are subject to strict standards and are not a way to relitigate issues already decided. Reconsideration may be appropriate because of an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, clear error, or the need to prevent manifest injustice. Evidence offered as newly discovered must have been unavailable despite reasonable diligence, and the failure to reconsider must result in manifest injustice.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Poehler’s calculations were not new evidence warranting reconsideration. Plaintiffs had already submitted their experts’ calculations showing that comparable plans, including Caltech, had fees below $40 per participant per year. The court had accepted plaintiffs’ version of the facts for purposes of summary judgment, so Poehler’s similar calculations were cumulative and did not materially change the information previously before the court.

The court also explained that its earlier rejection of Caltech as a comparison was not based on whether Caltech’s recordkeeping fees were lower. Instead, the earlier ruling found that plaintiffs’ experts had not explained why or how they selected the universities used for comparison. The court concluded that the new calculations did not show that Caltech was a relevant comparison or that the fee figures could lead a reasonable juror to find that Cornell could have obtained lower fees. The calculations therefore did not raise a question of loss to the plans.

Disposition

Judge P. Castel denied plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion, identified as docket entry 386. The opinion does not state that the motion was denied with or without prejudice.