Link Motion Inc. v. DLA Piper LLP

Background

The court had previously denied Link Motion Inc.’s request to remand, or send, the action from federal court to the New York State Supreme Court for New York County. Link Motion then moved for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and Local Civil Rule 6.3. In the alternative, it asked the court to certify the remand issue for an immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).

Reconsideration

The court described reconsideration as an extraordinary remedy that is generally available only when the moving party identifies controlling decisions or information the court overlooked, an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or a need to prevent serious unfairness.

The court concluded that Link Motion was rearguing its preferred interpretation of Gunn v. Minton, an issue it had already presented in its earlier filings. The court said reconsideration is not a way to relitigate an issue that has already been decided. It also rejected Link Motion’s assertion that the court had made a clear error in distinguishing Gunn.

The court explained that the federal courts in Gunn had not actually decided the merits of the federal issue at issue there. By contrast, the court said it had already addressed and decided the merits of the federal issues underlying this malpractice action in a related proceeding. The court concluded that Link Motion had identified no other basis satisfying the strict reconsideration standard.

Immediate appeal

Section 1292(b) permits a district judge to certify an otherwise nonappealable order for immediate appeal when it presents a controlling legal question, there is substantial disagreement about that question, and an immediate appeal may materially advance the end of the litigation. The court found that Link Motion’s brief did not support the request and that an appeal of the remand ruling would not materially advance the case. The court noted that it had already directed the parties to address a briefing schedule for DLA Piper’s anticipated motion to dismiss.

Ruling and effect

Judge Victor Marrero DENIED Link Motion’s motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b) and Local Civil Rule 6.3. He also DENIED Link Motion’s request to have the issues certified for an immediate interlocutory appeal under Section 1292(b). The parties were directed to comply with the prior order by notifying the court about whether they consented to treating pre-motion letters as a fully briefed motion or wanted supplemental or full briefing on DLA Piper’s proposed motion.