Anderson & Anderson LLP - Guangzhou v. Lowinger
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:19-cv-03369
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Anderson & Anderson LLP–Guangzhou v. North American-Foreign Trading Corp.: Judge Abrams denied reconsideration of the dismissal.
The plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration was denied, leaving the earlier order granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss in place.
What happened
In Anderson & Anderson LLP–Guangzhou v. North American-Foreign Trading Corp., the court reviewed the plaintiffs’ request to reconsider an earlier order that granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss and denied the plaintiffs’ request for more time.
The plaintiffs argued that the New York state-court case had not been dismissed for neglect to prosecute and that the New York Savings Statute should therefore apply. They also argued that they had actively pursued the state-court case and faced problems obtaining new representation and responding to discovery demands.
Judge Ronnie Abrams denied reconsideration. She ruled that the plaintiffs had not identified a change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error or injustice, and that their arguments merely repeated issues already decided.
The detailed version
- Anderson & Anderson LLP - Guangzhou v. Lowinger · No. 1:19-cv-03369
- Ronnie Abrams
- May 8, 2020
Background
On March 18, 2020, the Court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss and denied the plaintiffs’ motion for an extension of time. The plaintiffs then moved for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3.
The opinion states that the earlier dismissal concerned whether the plaintiffs could use New York’s Savings Statute, New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 205(a), after a related state-court action was dismissed. The plaintiffs argued that the state-court action had not been dismissed for neglect to prosecute. They said they had pursued that action aggressively but could not retain their preferred representation by the deadline set by the state court and could not comply with deposition requirements they described as based on forged notices.
Reconsideration standard
The Court described reconsideration as an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly. A party seeking reconsideration must identify an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. A motion may not be used simply to relitigate an issue the court already decided.
Court’s reasoning
The Court held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) did not govern the state-court action, which was governed by New York law. The Court concluded that the state court’s September 22, 2017 decision—striking the complaint because the plaintiffs had not reasonably explained their failure to comply with an earlier conditional order, had not timely secured new counsel, and had not complied with discovery demands—constituted a dismissal for neglect to prosecute under New York’s Savings Statute.
The Court further found that the plaintiffs had identified no new evidence or change in law. Their motion instead repeated their earlier arguments about the state-court proceedings and sought to relitigate questions already decided.
Disposition
Judge Ronnie Abrams denied the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. 46. The opinion does not separately restate the full underlying facts or the complete terms of the earlier dismissal order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.