Woitovich v. Schoenfeld
- Jesse Furman
- 1:22-cv-01742
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Woitovich v. Schoenfeld, Judge Furman denied Woitovich’s reconsideration motion because it repeated arguments already rejected.
Rhonda Woitovich’s request for reconsideration was denied; the opinion also concerns Lydia Schoenfeld’s earlier motion to dismiss, which the court had granted in part.
What happened
In Woitovich v. Schoenfeld, the court had previously granted in part Lydia Schoenfeld’s motion to dismiss Rhonda Woitovich’s claims.
Woitovich then asked the court to reconsider that earlier order. The opinion says her motion repeated arguments the court had already considered and rejected.
Judge Jesse M. Furman denied the reconsideration motion as meritless and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion from the docket.
The detailed version
- Woitovich v. Schoenfeld · No. 1:22-cv-01742
- Jesse Furman
- Jan. 12, 2023
Background
On December 28, 2022, the court issued an opinion and order granting in part Defendant Lydia Schoenfeld’s motion to dismiss. On January 11, 2023, Plaintiff Rhonda Woitovich moved for reconsideration of that order.
Motion for Reconsideration
The court stated that Woitovich’s motion merely reargued the same points the court had already considered and rejected. It also stated that the motion presented no valid grounds for reconsideration. The court cited the rule that a reconsideration motion is not a way to relitigate old issues, present new theories, obtain another hearing on the merits, or take a second opportunity to argue the case. Reconsideration generally requires the moving party to identify controlling decisions or information that the court overlooked.
Ruling
The court denied Woitovich’s motion for reconsideration as meritless. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion, listed as ECF No. 49. The order does not provide further details about the claims or the court’s earlier reasons for granting Schoenfeld’s motion to dismiss.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.