WGH Communications, Inc. v. Penachio Malara LLP
- Laura Swain
- 1:19-cv-02230
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In WGH Communications v. Penachio Malara, Judge Swain denied reconsideration because WGH repeated arguments already rejected.
WGH Communications, Inc.’s motion for reconsideration was denied; the earlier order denying permission to file a Second Amended Complaint remained in place.
What happened
WGH Communications, Inc. v. Penachio Malara LLP concerned WGH Communications’ request to reconsider an earlier order. That earlier order adopted Magistrate Judge Cave’s recommendation and denied WGH Communications permission to file a second amended complaint.
WGH Communications argued that the earlier decision should be reconsidered. The court explained that reconsideration is reserved for situations involving a change in controlling law, important new evidence, a clear error, or serious unfairness. The court found that WGH Communications repeated arguments it had already made rather than identifying one of those reasons.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the motion for reconsideration and stated that the order resolved Docket Entry No. 91.
The detailed version
- WGH Communications, Inc. v. Penachio Malara LLP · No. 1:19-cv-02230
- Laura Swain
- Feb. 19, 2021
Background
The court considered WGH Communications, Inc.’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s February 12, 2021, order. That earlier order adopted Magistrate Judge Cave’s Report and Recommendation and denied WGH Communications’ motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint.
Legal standard
The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy intended to preserve the finality of decisions. Under Southern District of New York Local Civil Rule 6.3, reconsideration generally requires the moving party to identify an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. It is not a way to relitigate issues already decided or present new versions of arguments previously rejected.
Court’s analysis
The court found that WGH Communications had not identified a legal or factual basis for reconsideration. It had not identified controlling authority requiring a different result, shown a fundamental unfairness, or demonstrated clear error or manifest injustice. Instead, WGH Communications repeated arguments from its motion for leave to amend and its objections to Magistrate Judge Cave’s recommendation. The court concluded that it had not overlooked those earlier arguments.
Ruling
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the motion to reconsider the February 12 order. The order stated that it resolved Docket Entry No. 91.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.