Snellinger v. Federal National Mortgage Association

Background

John Snellinger brought a personal injury action in New York State Supreme Court, and Federal National Mortgage Association removed it to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Judge Nelson Roman later granted Snellinger permission to amend his complaint. Snellinger filed an amended complaint and then a second amended complaint on November 1, 2022, the deadline set in the case-management plan for amended pleadings.

Snellinger later sought permission to file a third amended complaint. On May 10, 2023, Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison denied that motion. Snellinger then moved for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3. The case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Victoria Reznik on May 31, 2023.

Arguments and analysis

A reconsideration motion is available only when the moving party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error or manifest injustice. It is not a way to reargue issues already decided. The court explained that the standard is strict and requires identifying an overlooked matter that could reasonably be expected to change the earlier result.

Snellinger argued that Judge Davison overlooked the significance and lasting effects of his counsel’s Long COVID. Judge Reznik found that Judge Davison had directly considered that evidence. Judge Davison had recognized counsel’s condition but concluded that it did not explain the failure to meet the November 1, 2022 deadline because counsel had been able to work full days after October 19, 2022. Judge Reznik also noted that counsel had filed a timely second amended complaint. The court concluded that Snellinger had not shown an overlooked matter that would alter the earlier ruling.

Snellinger also argued that Judge Davison failed to properly balance Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), which generally provides for freely given permission to amend pleadings, against Rule 16(b)(4), which requires good cause to modify a scheduling order. Judge Reznik rejected that argument, explaining that after the amendment deadline has passed, the party seeking amendment must show the good cause required by Rule 16. Because Judge Davison found that Snellinger had not shown good cause, Judge Reznik concluded that there was no clear legal error.

Ruling

Magistrate Judge Victoria Reznik denied Snellinger’s motion for reconsideration. The clerk was requested to terminate the pending reconsideration motion, identified as ECF No. 141. The opinion did not grant permission to file a third amended complaint.