Media Glow Digital, LLC v. Panasonic Corporation of North America
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:16-cv-07907
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Media Glow Digital v. Panasonic: Judge Gardephe denied ICON’s request to reconsider an order refusing summary judgment on a negligence claim.
ICON Architectural Group, LLC, ICON Architectural Group, PLLC, and ICON HD, LLC were denied reconsideration; the plaintiffs’ negligence claim remained scheduled for trial.
What happened
Media Glow Digital v. Panasonic concerns ICON’s request to reconsider an earlier order rejecting its request for summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ negligence claim. The case was scheduled to proceed to trial.
ICON argued that an earlier order required the plaintiffs to present expert testimony to prove their allegations. The court said that order addressed professional malpractice, not the plaintiffs’ simple negligence claim, which can sometimes proceed without expert testimony.
Judge Gardephe denied ICON’s motion for reconsideration and directed the clerk to terminate it. The court also said it would not entertain another reconsideration motion from ICON and that the case would proceed to trial under the existing schedule.
The detailed version
- Media Glow Digital, LLC v. Panasonic Corporation of North America · No. 1:16-cv-07907
- Paul Gardephe
- Apr. 8, 2020
Background
Defendants ICON Architectural Group, LLC, ICON Architectural Group, PLLC, and ICON HD, LLC, collectively called ICON, sought reconsideration of the court’s March 24, 2020 order. That earlier order had denied ICON’s motion for reconsideration and rejected ICON’s argument that it was entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ negligence claim.
Legal standard
The court explained that reconsideration under Local Rule 6.3 is an extraordinary remedy. A party must identify controlling law or facts that the court overlooked and that could reasonably change the result. Reconsideration cannot be used to present new arguments or facts, relitigate issues already decided, or replace an appeal.
Analysis
ICON argued that the court had overlooked or misunderstood Judge John F. Keenan’s May 29, 2019 order. According to ICON, that order held that the plaintiffs had to provide expert testimony to establish the applicable standard of care and a breach for the categories of conduct involved in their claim.
The court rejected that argument. It explained that the portions of Judge Keenan’s order cited by ICON addressed professional malpractice, which requires proof that the defendant departed from accepted professional standards. They did not address the plaintiffs’ simple negligence claim. The court also noted that the authorities ICON cited involved professional malpractice or professional negligence, not simple negligence. Although professional malpractice involves negligence elements, the proof required can differ, and a simple negligence claim against a professional may proceed without expert testimony in some circumstances.
The court concluded that ICON had not identified controlling law or facts that the court had overlooked and that could change its earlier decision.
Disposition
The court denied ICON’s motion for reconsideration and directed the clerk to terminate the motion. The court stated that no further motion for reconsideration from ICON would be entertained and that the case would proceed to trial on the schedule in the court’s March 30, 2020 order.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.