Brady v. Gregory Sheindlin, Esq.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:20-cv-07047
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Brady v. Sheindlin, Judge Liman denied Brady’s motion to reconsider the earlier dismissal because he showed no qualifying basis.
James Brady, Gregory Sheindlin, and The Sheindlin Law Firm; the earlier order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss was not changed.
What happened
In Brady v. Gregory Sheindlin, Esq., James Brady asked Judge Liman to reconsider the court’s earlier order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The defendants were Gregory Sheindlin and The Sheindlin Law Firm.
The court explained that reconsideration is allowed only for an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error or manifest injustice. The court said Brady instead repeated arguments and allegations that it had already addressed.
Judge Lewis J. Liman denied the motion for reconsideration. He directed the clerk to close the motion and mail a copy of the order to Brady.
The detailed version
- Brady v. Gregory Sheindlin, Esq. · No. 1:20-cv-07047
- Lewis Liman
- Mar. 5, 2021
Background
James Brady moved for reconsideration of the court’s February 25, 2021 Opinion and Order, which granted Gregory Sheindlin and The Sheindlin Law Firm’s motion to dismiss. The reconsideration motion was filed at Dkt. No. 28.
Legal standard
The court stated that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly. It may be granted when the moving party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. It is not a way to relitigate old issues, present new theories, obtain another hearing on the merits, or take a second opportunity to argue the case.
Court’s analysis
The court found no basis for reconsideration. It stated that Brady did not identify a change in controlling law, new evidence, or an error. Instead, the court said he repeated the allegations and arguments from his complaint and his opposition to the motion to dismiss, which the court had already addressed.
Ruling and effect
Judge Lewis J. Liman denied the motion for reconsideration. The clerk was directed to close the motion at Dkt. No. 28 and mail a copy of the order to Brady. The order did not change the earlier order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.