Ramgoolie v. Ramgoolie

Background

Jenny Ramgoolie, proceeding without a lawyer, moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to reconsider part of the court’s earlier order concerning damages. The earlier order adopted Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn’s recommendation after the court entered a default judgment against Andy Ramgoolie and referred damages for further proceedings.

The earlier order awarded Jenny 50% of the value of the dialysis center’s shares. It did not award her 50% of the value of shares in the company that acquired the dialysis center, and it did not award damages related to her salary or expenses. The court had found that information supplied by Shanaz Sukhdeo, a Trinidadian Qualified Accountant, did not adequately establish the purchasing company’s finances or provide a sufficiently certain basis for valuing the shares. The court therefore determined the value of the original center’s shares from the center’s purchase price.

Arguments and Legal Standard

Jenny argued that the court wrongly discounted Sukhdeo’s valuation. She asserted that Sukhdeo was an expert witness, that the information underlying his analysis was reliable, and that discounted cash flow analysis was a reliable method of valuing a business. She alternatively asked the court to appoint an accountant to perform a valuation. She also argued that she should receive damages for salary and expenses.

A motion for reconsideration is an exceptional request to revisit an earlier ruling. Under the standard applied by the court, the moving party must identify an intervening change in controlling law, genuinely new evidence, a clear error, or a need to prevent serious unfairness. Reconsideration is not available merely to repeat arguments that the court already considered and decided.

Court’s Analysis

The court said the main reason it rejected Sukhdeo’s valuation was the lack of evidence about the finances of the dialysis center and the purchasing company. Jenny’s arguments about the reliability of the data and the discounted cash flow method were the same arguments she had presented to Magistrate Judge Netburn and in her objection to the earlier recommendation. The court had already concluded that the information Jenny provided to Sukhdeo was not complete enough to establish contract damages with reasonable certainty.

The court also rejected reconsideration of salary and expense damages because Jenny identified no new evidence, controlling case law, or clear error undermining the earlier finding that reliable evidence did not establish her salary or the expenses for which she sought reimbursement.

The court noted that Jenny had submitted additional declarations from dialysis-center employees, but concluded that they did not qualify as new evidence because they could reasonably have been presented earlier. The court did not accept Andy’s assertion that Jenny’s papers were partly written by a lawyer, stating that the assertion was conclusory and unsupported by plausible evidence. The court nevertheless found that, even reading Jenny’s submission more leniently because she was representing herself, she had not met the reconsideration standard.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni denied Jenny Ramgoolie’s motion for reconsideration of the April 15, 2022 order and directed the clerk to close the motion at Docket 330.