Trombetta v. Novocin
- Laura Swain
- 1:18-cv-00993
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Trombetta v. Novocin, Judge Abrams denied reconsideration of striking Trombetta’s sur-reply, explaining it would not change the earlier ruling.
Annamarie Trombetta, who sought reconsideration, and the defendants, including WorthPoint Corp. and William Seippel, whose motion to dismiss was discussed.
What happened
In Trombetta v. Novocin, Annamarie Trombetta asked the court to reconsider its decision to remove her sur-reply from the record and to consider what she had written. The court had previously granted in part and denied in part certain defendants’ motion to dismiss and had granted the motion to strike the sur-reply.
The court said Trombetta’s motion did not meet the demanding standard for reconsideration. It also explained that the sur-reply would not have changed the earlier decision: the court had ruled for Trombetta on whether her copyright and Digital Millennium Copyright Act claims were timely and adequately pleaded, but it still would have rejected her arguments about jurisdiction over William Seippel and her contributory copyright claim.
Judge Ronnie Abrams denied the motion for reconsideration and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate it. The court also stated that removing the sur-reply did not prevent Trombetta from relying on its evidence or arguments later to support her remaining claims.
The detailed version
- Trombetta v. Novocin · No. 1:18-cv-00993
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 31, 2022
Background
On December 20, 2021, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss filed by WorthPoint Corp. and William Seippel. The court also granted defendants’ motion to strike Annamarie Trombetta’s sur-reply, meaning the filing was removed from the record. Trombetta moved for reconsideration of that decision and asked the court to restore the sur-reply and consider its contents. The opinion identifies Trombetta as proceeding without a lawyer.
Legal standard
The court stated that motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Civil Rule 6.3 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy available when the movant shows an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent serious unfairness. The court held that Trombetta’s motion did not satisfy that standard.
Arguments in the sur-reply
The court nevertheless explained what would have happened if it had considered the sur-reply. Trombetta made four arguments: her contributory copyright and Digital Millennium Copyright Act claims were not time-barred; the court had jurisdiction over Seippel; the complaint adequately stated a contributory copyright claim; and the complaint adequately stated a claim under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
The court said it had already ruled in Trombetta’s favor on the first and fourth arguments, holding that her copyright and Digital Millennium Copyright Act claims were not time-barred and that she had adequately pleaded her Digital Millennium Copyright Act claims. The court said the sur-reply would not have changed its rulings on the other two arguments. It continued to conclude that New York’s long-arm statutes did not provide jurisdiction over Seippel. It also continued to conclude that Trombetta had not alleged that WorthPoint acted together with a direct copyright infringer. The additional assertions concerning communications with Google and WorthPoint’s handling of Google search results did not change that analysis.
Disposition
The court denied Trombetta’s motion for reconsideration. It stated that the earlier order striking the sur-reply only removed the filing from the record and did not prevent Trombetta from relying on the evidence or arguments in that filing later to advance her remaining claims. The court requested that the Clerk of Court terminate the motion at docket entry 191.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.