Chen v. Matsu Fusion Restaurant Inc
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-11895
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Chen v. Matsu Fusion Restaurant Inc, Judge Furman denied defendants’ request to reconsider an order requiring them to pay one day of juror attendance costs.
The ruling affects the defendants, who remain responsible for the ordered juror-attendance costs, and the summoned jurors whose attendance costs were included.
What happened
In Chen v. Matsu Fusion Restaurant Inc, the defendants asked the court to reconsider its November 15, 2022 order requiring them to pay the cost of one day of the jurors’ attendance.
The court rejected the request because reconsideration is not meant to reargue old issues or present new arguments. The defendants’ arguments had also been disclaimed in their settlement agreement, which required them to pay costs imposed under the court’s local rule. The court separately denied their request to reduce the amount, explaining that the costs covered all summoned jurors, not only those seated, and that the amount could have been higher if jurors had requested parking and toll reimbursement.
Judge Jesse M. Furman denied the motion for reconsideration and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the related docket entry. The opinion did not dismiss the case or add a prejudice qualification.
The detailed version
- Chen v. Matsu Fusion Restaurant Inc · No. 1:19-cv-11895
- Jesse Furman
- Nov. 30, 2022
Background
The court’s November 15, 2022 order required Defendants to pay the cost of one day’s attendance of the jurors. Defendants moved for reconsideration of that order and also asked the court to lower the costs imposed.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that a motion for reconsideration is not a means to relitigate issues, present new theories, obtain a rehearing on the merits, or take another opportunity to argue the case. The court found that Defendants were seeking to raise new arguments, including arguments they had expressly disclaimed in their settlement agreement. According to the opinion, a material term of that agreement required Defendants to bear costs imposed under Local Civil Rule 47.1.
The court also denied Defendants’ request to reduce the costs. It stated that the request was belated and that the relevant costs applied to all jurors who were summoned, not only those who were seated. The court added that the amount ordered could have been higher because it had not waited to determine whether jurors would request reimbursement for parking and toll expenses.
Disposition
Judge Jesse M. Furman denied Defendants’ motion for reconsideration and denied their request to lower the imposed costs. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 229. The opinion did not state that the motion was denied with or without prejudice.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.