AT&T Enterprises, LLC v. Atos IT Solutions and Services, Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:23-cv-01395
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In AT&T Corp. v. Atos, Judge Liman denied reconsideration of an order dismissing two claims while allowing another to proceed.
AT&T Corp.’s request for reconsideration and clarification was denied; Atos IT Solutions and Services, Inc. was the opposing defendant. The earlier order’s dismissal of two claims remained undisturbed by this order.
What happened
AT&T Corp. sued Atos IT Solutions and Services, Inc. and pleaded three claims as alternatives. In an earlier order, the court allowed one claim to proceed but dismissed the other two for failure to state a claim.
AT&T asked the court to reconsider that decision, arguing that it had overlooked controlling law and factual allegations. It also asked the court to clarify that it could amend its complaint.
Judge Lewis J. Liman denied the reconsideration motion. He said AT&T had not identified a change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error. He also said no clarification was needed: AT&T may seek permission to amend if it follows the applicable rules and deadlines.
The detailed version
- AT&T Enterprises, LLC v. Atos IT Solutions and Services, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-01395
- Lewis Liman
- Feb. 14, 2024
Background
AT&T Corp. moved under Local Civil Rule 6.3 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(a) for reconsideration of the court’s December 22, 2023 Opinion and Order. That earlier order denied in full Atos IT Solutions and Services, Inc.’s motion to dismiss AT&T’s claims, but sustained one of AT&T’s three alternative claims and dismissed the other two for failure to state a claim for relief.
AT&T argued that the court had overlooked controlling law and certain factual allegations. AT&T also asked the court to clarify that the dismissal did not prevent it from amending its complaint or seeking permission to amend it.
Legal standard
Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy. The court explained that it is generally available only when the moving party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. It is not a way to relitigate earlier arguments or present a case under new theories.
Court’s analysis
The court found that AT&T did not claim an intervening change in controlling law or newly available evidence. The court also concluded that it had considered AT&T’s allegations and applicable controlling law when it dismissed the second and third claims. It stated that it had applied the standards governing a motion to dismiss and had evaluated whether the allegations plausibly stated claims for reformation or breach of the Settlement Agreement, including in light of obvious alternative explanations.
The court found no persuasive reason to reconsider its earlier decision. As to amendment, the court said no further clarification was needed. AT&T may move to amend, but it must satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, comply with the case-management deadlines or show good cause to modify them under Rule 16, and follow other applicable rules.
Disposition
Judge Lewis J. Liman denied AT&T’s motion for reconsideration. The Clerk of Court was directed to close Docket Entry 36.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.