Live Brands Holdings v. Gastronomico Gracias a Dios

Background

The defendants asked the court to reconsider its February 3, 2023 opinion and order. The dispute involved a memorandum of understanding that the court had treated as a binding agreement. The defendants included Grupo Gastronomico Gracias a Dios, Sociedad de Responsabilidad Limitada de Capital Variable, identified as “GAD,” and four shareholders, collectively identified as the defendants.

Defendants’ Argument

The defendants argued that the court had misunderstood the New York Appellate Division’s decision in Hajdu-Nemeth v. Zachariou. They said that the agreement in that earlier case expressly stated that it was binding and did not contain an expiration date, unlike the memorandum of understanding in this case. According to the defendants, the court’s reasoning effectively disregarded the memorandum’s expiration clause. They asked the court to find that the memorandum had expired under its own terms and stated that Live Brands could then seek repayment of amounts it was still owed.

Ruling

The court denied the motion. It applied the rule that reconsideration generally requires the moving party to identify controlling decisions or information that the court overlooked and that could reasonably change its conclusion. The court held that the defendants’ disagreement with the court’s analysis of Hajdu-Nemeth did not satisfy that standard. The court directed the clerk to close the motion listed at Docket Number 75.

Disposition

The motion for reconsideration was denied. The opinion does not state that the denial was with or without prejudice.