HV Associates LLC v. The PNC Bank N.A.
- Andrew Carter
- 1:19-cv-07438
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
HV Associates LLC v. PNC Bank, Judge Carter denied reconsideration of the prior dismissal and declined to allow another amended complaint.
HV Associates LLC, Harshi Vashisht, and Vishal Hashisht remained subject to the earlier dismissal, and the court did not allow them to amend the operative complaint.
What happened
HV Associates LLC, Harshi Vashisht, and Vishal Hashisht v. PNC Bank, N.A., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, and John Does 1-10 involved the plaintiffs’ request to revisit the court’s earlier dismissal of their complaints.
The plaintiffs repeated arguments the court had already rejected and offered new allegations about Vishal’s residence and employment. The court said they did not show a change in controlling law, new evidence, a clear error, or an unfair result requiring reconsideration.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. denied the motion for reconsideration and declined to allow the plaintiffs to amend their complaint again.
The detailed version
- HV Associates LLC v. The PNC Bank N.A. · No. 1:19-cv-07438
- Andrew Carter
- Apr. 15, 2021
Background
The plaintiffs asked the court to reconsider its September 30, 2020 opinion and order dismissing the Second Amended and Supplemental Complaints. They also asked for permission to amend the operative complaint if the court declined to reconsider its earlier conclusions.
Legal standard
The court explained that reconsideration is an exceptional remedy 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 an unfair result. It is not a way to repeat old arguments, present new theories, or obtain another hearing on issues already decided.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that the plaintiffs did not meet this demanding standard. They repeated arguments about equitable tolling and tolling agreements that the court had already considered and rejected. They also raised new arguments that could have been made in opposition to the original motion to dismiss.
The plaintiffs argued that the court had incorrectly concluded that Vishal resided in Canada when his contract was breached because he maintained a residence in New Jersey. The court noted that the plaintiffs had not previously made that argument in connection with the motion to dismiss or the choice-of-law analysis. The court also noted that many supporting allegations were not included in the Second Amended Complaint and were offered for the first time in the reconsideration motion.
The plaintiffs similarly introduced a new allegation that CM LLC contacted Barclays and caused Vishal’s termination. The court noted that the plaintiffs had previously alleged that Vishal was terminated as part of downsizing rather than for cause. The court treated this new allegation as an impermissible attempt to advance a new theory.
The court also declined to grant leave to amend. It had previously denied permission to replead because the plaintiffs had declined to amend the Second Amended Complaint even though its deficiencies had been identified in earlier opinions and pre-motion submissions. The court further stated that the arguments supporting another amendment could have been presented earlier.
Disposition
The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. It also declined to grant them leave to amend the operative complaint.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.