Chapman v. City Winery NY - Pier 57, LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-02778
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Chapman v. City Winery, Judge Schofield denied City Winery’s request to reconsider an earlier refusal to dismiss Chapman’s wage-statement claim.
The ruling affected City Winery NY - Pier 57, LLC’s request to revisit the earlier refusal to dismiss Chapman’s wage-statement claim; the request was denied.
What happened
In Chapman v. City Winery NY - Pier 57, LLC, the defendant asked the court to reconsider its earlier decision denying part of the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The request concerned Chapman’s claim under New York Labor Law section 195(3) about wage statements.
The defendant argued that the earlier decision should be reconsidered. The court said reconsideration is available only when there is a change in controlling law, new evidence, a clear error, or a need to prevent serious unfairness. The court found that the defendant identified none of those grounds.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied the application and denied the motion for reconsideration on the merits. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion.
The detailed version
- Chapman v. City Winery NY - Pier 57, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-02778
- Lorna Schofield
- Feb. 20, 2024
Background
Ke’Mon Chapman sued City Winery NY - Pier 57, LLC, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. The defendant previously filed a partial motion to dismiss. In an earlier opinion and order, the court denied that motion as to Chapman’s wage-statement claim under New York Labor Law section 195(3), identified as the Fourth Claim for Relief in the Second Amended Complaint.
Motion for Reconsideration
The defendant moved under Local Civil Rule 6.3 for reconsideration of the earlier decision and asked the court to dismiss the wage-statement claim. A motion for reconsideration asks the court to revisit an earlier ruling. The court stated that such relief is available only if the moving party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, a clear error, or a need to prevent manifest injustice.
The court concluded that the defendant identified none of those grounds. It also stated that, after reviewing additional case law following the November 1, 2023 conference, it concluded that denying the partial motion to dismiss was the correct decision.
Ruling
The court denied the application. It also denied the motion for reconsideration on the merits for the reasons stated in the opinion at Docket 68. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket 69. The opinion does not state that the wage-statement claim was dismissed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.