The Estate of Alkiviades Meimaris v. Royce
- George Daniels
- 1:18-cv-04363
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In The Estate of Alkiviades Meimaris v. Royce, Judge Daniels denied reconsideration because Plaintiff identified no overlooked matter or relevant new evidence.
Helen Meimaris, individually and as executrix and legal representative of the Estate of Alkiviades Meimaris, and the defendants affected by the earlier dismissal.
What happened
The Estate of Alkiviades Meimaris v. Royce concerns Helen Meimaris’s request to revisit the court’s earlier dismissal of her third amended complaint against the defendants.
Helen Meimaris argued that the court incorrectly calculated when the claims arose, wrongly determined that the fifth claim was directed only at a previously dismissed defendant, and should consider evidence she said showed she learned of the wrongdoing in 2017. She also challenged the denial of another chance to amend.
Judge George B. Daniels denied the motion for reconsideration. He ruled that Helen Meimaris had not identified anything the court overlooked, that the asserted new evidence was not new or relevant, and that the earlier rulings on standing and the statute of limitations remained unchanged.
The detailed version
- The Estate of Alkiviades Meimaris v. Royce · No. 1:18-cv-04363
- George Daniels
- Apr. 5, 2021
Background
Helen Meimaris sued on behalf of herself and as executrix and legal representative of the Estate of her late husband, Alkiviades Meimaris. The court had previously adopted Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses’s August 20, 2019 report and recommendation and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in its entirety.
The earlier decision concluded that Helen Meimaris lacked standing to sue in her individual capacity, that the fifth cause of action charged only a defendant who had already been dismissed, and that the remaining claims brought as executrix were barred by New York’s six-year statute of limitations. The court had determined that the decedent discovered the claims no later than November 2013.
Motion for Reconsideration
Helen Meimaris moved for reconsideration under Local Rule 6.3 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally available only when the court overlooked controlling decisions or information that could reasonably change its conclusion. Other possible grounds include a change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice.
Helen Meimaris argued that the court had used the wrong accrual date, had incorrectly treated the fifth cause of action as directed only at a previously dismissed defendant, and should consider evidence that she said she did not discover the relevant wrongdoing until 2017. She also argued that the court should have allowed another amendment to the complaint.
Court’s Ruling
Judge George B. Daniels denied the motion for reconsideration. The court found that Helen Meimaris had not identified any matter the court overlooked and had repeated arguments previously presented to Magistrate Judge Moses and the district court. The court also found that the asserted evidence was not newly discovered and was irrelevant because the decedent’s discovery date controlled the estate’s claims, not Helen Meimaris’s asserted discovery date. The court further found the request for another opportunity to amend unsupported and unpersuasive.
The motion for reconsideration was DENIED, and the Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.