Opinion
07 Civ. 0928 (HB).
September 17, 2007
OPINION ORDER
On June 18, 2007, this Court denied Plaintiff Michael Cohn's ("Plaintiff") request for a jury trial. Plaintiff moves this Court to reconsider its June 18, 2007 Order ("Order"). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case concerns Plaintiff's entitlement to disability benefits under Citigroup's short-term ("STD") and long-term ("LTD") disability plans governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. The facts of this case are set forth in detail in my May 31, 2007 Opinion Order, familiarity with which is presumed. See Cohn v. Metro. Life Ins., Co., No. 07-Civ.-0928 (HB), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39161 (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2007).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
"Motions for reconsideration are intended to bring to the Court's attention matters that it overlooked, not to examin[e] a decision and then plug the gaps of a lost motion with additional matters . . . [a] party seeking reconsideration is not supposed to treat the court's initial decision as the opening of a dialogue in which that party may then use such a motion to advance new theories or adduce new evidence in response to the court's rulings." In re Rezulin Prods. Liab. Litig., 224 F.R.D. 346, 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (internal quotation and citation omitted); In re Health Mgmt. Sys., Sec. Litig., 113 F. Supp. 2d 613, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (noting that reconsideration is an "extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources."). The purpose of Local Civil Rule 6.3, which governs Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, is to ensure the finality of decisions. Accordingly, relief is only available to the extent that the Court overlooked controlling law or factual matters that were put before it, or alternatively, where the movant demonstrates a clear error or to prevent manifest injustice. Sequa Corp. v. GBJ Corp., 156 F.3d 136, 144 (2d Cir. 1998) (emphasis added). A court must narrowly construe and strictly apply Local Rule 6.3 "so as to avoid duplicative rulings on previously considered issues and to prevent the Rule from being used as a substitute for appealing a final judgment." Newman v. RCN Telecom Servs., 448 F. Supp. 2d 556, 557 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).
Local Civil Rule 6.3 provides in pertinent part: "A notice of motion for reconsideration or reargument shall be served within ten (10) days after the docketing of the court's determination of the original motion. There shall be served with the notice of motion a memorandum setting forth concisely the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the court has overlooked. . . . No oral argument shall be heard unless the court directs that the matter shall be reargued orally. No affidavits shall be filed by any party unless directed by the court." (emphasis added).
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff argues that this Court should grant reconsideration of its prior Order and grant Plaintiff's request for a jury trial for three reasons: (1) the Supreme Court's decision in Great-West Ann. Ins. v. Knudsen, 534 U.S. 204 (2002) "unequivocally demonstrates that Plaintiff's claim is legal in nature" (Pl's Mem. in Support of Mot. for Reconsideration, at 2); (2) Second Circuit precedent supports the conclusion that Plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial (Id. at 4); and (3) other courts and commentators have recognized the right to a jury trial (Id. at 7). Not one of these arguments is sufficient to grant a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Local Rule 6.3 and governing case law. Plaintiff's motion and supporting memorandum merely recycle previous arguments considered and rejected by this Court. Cohn points to no controlling law or factual matters which the Court failed to consider in its June 18th Order. Nor does he argue yet alone demonstrate a clear error or describe the manifest injustice which will result should my decision stand. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration must be denied.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to close this motion and remove it from my docket.