Bloomfield Investment Resources Corp v. Daniloff
- Victor Marrero
- 1:17-cv-04181
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Bloomfield v. Daniloff, Judge Marrero denied Daniloff’s request to reconsider dismissal of his counterclaims or amend them.
The ruling directly affected Elliott Daniloff’s dismissed counterclaims and Bloomfield Investment Resources Corp.’s opposition to reconsideration and amendment. It denied reconsideration and leave to amend; the opinion does not resolve Bloomfield’s underlying claims in this order.
What happened
Bloomfield Investment Resources Corp. sued Elliott Daniloff over fraud, breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment. Daniloff filed counterclaims, which the court dismissed on April 26, 2021. He then asked the court to reconsider that decision or let him amend his counterclaims.
Daniloff argued that the court had overlooked its earlier contract analysis and that his fraud claim should be considered timely under a six-year deadline. The court found that the contract argument repeated points already made and that the six-year theory was a new argument improperly raised at reconsideration. The court also found that allowing an amendment would significantly delay the case because the litigation had been pending for years, discovery was nearly complete, and Daniloff had known the relevant information earlier.
In Bloomfield Investment Resources Corp. v. Daniloff, Judge Victor Marrero denied the motion for reconsideration and the alternative request for leave to amend. The order did not state that the denial was with or without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Bloomfield Investment Resources Corp v. Daniloff · No. 1:17-cv-04181
- Victor Marrero
- June 7, 2021
Background
Bloomfield Investment Resources Corp. sued Elliott Daniloff for fraud, breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment. Daniloff asserted counterclaims for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, fraud, and failure to indemnify. On April 26, 2021, the court granted Bloomfield’s motion to dismiss Daniloff’s counterclaims.
Daniloff later submitted letters asking the court to reconsider the April 26 order or, alternatively, to allow him to amend his counterclaims. The court treated the letters as a motion for reconsideration under Local Rule 6.3.
Reconsideration
The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy that generally requires the moving party to identify an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error or manifest injustice. It is not a vehicle for repeating arguments already made or presenting new legal theories.
As to the breach-of-contract counterclaim, Daniloff argued that the court had overlooked or contradicted its earlier analysis allowing Bloomfield’s parallel contract claim to proceed. The court rejected that argument because Daniloff had already made it in opposing Bloomfield’s dismissal motion. The court also stated that the agreements involved in the two claims were not identical and that the earlier analysis of Bloomfield’s claim was not controlling law.
As to the fraud counterclaim, Daniloff argued that, even if the claim was untimely under a two-year discovery rule, it should have been treated as timely under a six-year statute of limitations. The court held that this was a new legal theory raised for the first time on reconsideration and declined to consider it as a basis for changing the April 26 order.
Leave to Amend
The court also denied leave to amend. It found that amendment at that late stage would cause significant delay because the case had been pending for years and discovery was nearly complete. The court further found that Daniloff knew the information supporting the proposed amendments when the pleadings were first filed, had been aware of the deficiencies through the parties’ pre-motion letters, and had not sought to correct them earlier.
Disposition
The court ordered that Daniloff’s motion for reconsideration or leave to amend was DENIED. The opinion does not state that the denial was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.