The Avon Company v. Fareva Morton Grove, Inc.
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:22-cv-04724
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In The Avon Company v. Fareva Morton Grove, Judge Hellerstein denied Fareva’s motion for reconsideration of summary-judgment issues.
Fareva, whose motion for reconsideration was denied; the Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 340.
What happened
The Avon Company and LG H&H Co., Ltd. sued Fareva Morton Grove, Inc. and Fareva S.A. Fareva asked the court to reconsider issues raised in its motion for summary judgment, including the status of Section 13 damages.
The court explained that reconsideration is not a chance to repeat arguments simply because a party dislikes the earlier result. It said Fareva had not identified a controlling decision or information that the court had overlooked and was instead trying to reargue issues the court had already rejected.
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied Fareva’s motion for reconsideration and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 340.
The detailed version
- The Avon Company v. Fareva Morton Grove, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-04724
- Alvin Hellerstein
- May 15, 2024
Background
Fareva filed a motion for reconsideration, identified as ECF No. 340. The motion concerned issues previously raised in Fareva’s briefing supporting its motion for summary judgment, including the status of Section 13 damages.
Legal standard
The court stated that a motion for reconsideration is not a motion to reargue issues already considered merely because a party disagrees with the result. Reconsideration is generally denied unless the moving party identifies controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked. The court described this as a strict standard.
Ruling
The court found that Fareva was seeking to reargue issues raised and rejected in its original summary-judgment brief rather than identifying overlooked controlling authority or information. It held that Fareva had not met its burden and denied the motion for reconsideration. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 340. This order did not itself decide the underlying Section 13 damages issue.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.