Shim-Larkin v. City of New York
- Alison Nathan
- 1:16-cv-06099
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Shim-Larkin v. City of New York, Judge Nathan denied reconsideration of an earlier order about discovery and sanctions.
Heena Shim-Larkin’s request for reconsideration was denied, leaving the earlier decision concerning her objections to discovery and sanctions in place.
What happened
In Shim-Larkin v. City of New York, Heena Shim-Larkin asked the court to reconsider an earlier decision rejecting her objections to Magistrate Judge Fox’s discovery and sanctions decisions.
Shim-Larkin repeated her earlier claims, argued that the court had overlooked her arguments and sources, and alleged that she had been treated unfairly. She did not identify new evidence or a change in controlling law.
Judge Nathan denied the motion for reconsideration, explaining that disagreement with the court’s analysis was not enough. The court also found that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Shim-Larkin v. City of New York · No. 1:16-cv-06099
- Alison Nathan
- Dec. 23, 2020
Background
On September 28, 2020, the court issued an opinion denying Heena Shim-Larkin’s objections to decisions by Magistrate Judge Fox concerning discovery and sanctions. Shim-Larkin then filed a motion for reconsideration on October 13, 2020. The motion was fully briefed by November 20, 2020.
Arguments and Legal Standard
The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy. It is appropriate only when the moving party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. It is not a way to relitigate issues already considered or obtain another hearing on the merits.
Shim-Larkin repeated her initial claims, argued that the court had overlooked her arguments and cited sources, and alleged that the court had treated her unfairly or unequally. The court found that she identified no new evidence or facts unknown to the court and did not argue that controlling law had changed. It also held that her disagreement with the court’s analysis was not a basis for reconsideration.
Ruling
Judge Nathan denied Shim-Larkin’s motion for reconsideration. The order resolved docket entry 675. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court also found that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.