Burke v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc.
- Philip Halpern
- 7:20-cv-03742
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Burke v. Bimbo Bakeries, Judge Halpern denied Defendants’ motion to reconsider refusing to dismiss the class claims under the first-filed rule.
The defendants’ motion for reconsideration was denied, leaving in place the earlier refusal to dismiss the plaintiffs’ class-action claims. The order did not decide whether the plaintiffs’ claims would ultimately succeed.
What happened
In Burke v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., the defendants asked the court to reconsider its earlier refusal to dismiss the plaintiffs’ class-action claims. They argued that those claims were substantially similar to claims in an earlier-filed case.
The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy and is generally unavailable to repeat arguments already rejected. The defendants argued that the earlier decision should be reconsidered because their original motion challenged only the class claims, not the plaintiffs’ individual claims. The court found that distinction did not change its earlier reasoning because both cases were before the same judge and could potentially be consolidated or otherwise managed together.
Judge Halpern denied the defendants’ motion for reconsideration. The earlier decision refusing to dismiss the class claims therefore remained in place, and the court instructed the clerk to terminate the reconsideration motion.
The detailed version
- Burke v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. · No. 7:20-cv-03742
- Philip Halpern
- Sept. 14, 2020
Background
Plaintiffs brought class-action claims against Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. and Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC. The defendants previously moved to dismiss the class claims under the first-filed rule, which can apply when a later case substantially overlaps with an earlier-filed case. On August 6, 2020, the court denied that motion. The court stated that outright dismissal was unnecessary and that it could later consider consolidating the cases or otherwise streamlining the litigation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42.
Motion for Reconsideration
The defendants then moved for reconsideration of the August 6 order. The court described reconsideration as an extraordinary remedy that is generally appropriate only when the court overlooked controlling law or facts that could reasonably have changed its decision. It also explained that reconsideration is not a way to reargue issues already decided or present new arguments to replace unsuccessful ones.
The defendants argued that the first-filed rule should be applied because their earlier motion challenged only the class claims, not the plaintiffs’ individual claims. The court rejected that distinction. It reasoned that the cases were pending on the same judge’s docket and that the considerations normally supporting first-filed dismissal—saving judicial resources, avoiding inconsistent decisions, and reducing the burden of litigating in multiple venues—were not present. Whether the defendants had challenged the entire complaint or only the class claims did not change that analysis.
Disposition
Judge Philip M. Halpern held that the defendants had not met the heavy burden required for reconsideration. The court denied the defendants’ motion for reconsideration and instructed the clerk to terminate the pending motion, Doc. 32.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.