Opinion
02 MDL 1448 (RWS), 02 Civ. 439 (RWS), 02 Civ. 3143 (RWS).
December 12, 2007
OPINION
The Plaintiffs' Executive Committee ("PEC") has moved under Local Civil Rule 6.3 for reconsideration of this Court's Opinion dated September 4, 2007 (the "September 4 Opinion"), which granted summary judgment in favor of defendants American Airlines, Inc. ("American") and Airbus Industrie, G.I.E. ("Airbus"), (collectively, "Defendants"), dismissing with prejudice all claims by plaintiffs Michael Morley, Jr. and Michael Morley, Sr. (collectively, "Plaintiffs") in this action.See Morley v. Am. Airlines, Inc. (In re Air Crash at Belle Harbor, N.Y.), 508 F. Supp. 2d 244 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). For the reasons stated below, the motion will be denied.
The facts of this case were outlined in the September 4 Opinion, familiarity with which is assumed.
To receive reconsideration pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.3, "`the moving party must demonstrate controlling law or factual matters put before the court on the underlying motion that the movant believes the court overlooked and that might reasonably be expected to alter the court's decision.'" Word v. Croce, No. 01 Civ. 9614 (LTS), 2004 WL 434038, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2004) (quoting Parrish v. Sollecito, 253 F. Supp. 2d 713, 715 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)); see also Williams v. New York City Dep't of Corr., 219 F.R.D. 78, 83 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). Alternatively, reconsideration may be granted to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See Word, 2004 WL 434038, at *2 (quoting Parrish, 253 F. Supp. 2d at 715 (citing Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 965 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992))).
Courts ordinarily have not defined precisely what constitutes clearly erroneous or manifest injustice for reconsideration purposes. At least one court has held though that reconsideration is not warranted unless the prior decision is "dead wrong." Parts Electric Motors, Inc. v. Sterling Electric, Inc., 866 F.2d 228, 233 (7th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 847 (1989). Finally, regardless of what the basis for reconsideration is, while acknowledging a court's power to revisit its own decision, the Supreme Court has cautioned that "as a rule courts should be loathe to do so in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. . . ." Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817 (1988) (emphasis added).Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Stone Webster Engineering Corp., No. 88-CV-819, 1992 WL 121726, at *20 (N.D.N.Y. May 23, 1992).
Local Civil Rule 6.3, which requires that a motion to reconsider be served within ten days of entry of the court's order on the original motion, "should be narrowly construed and strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the Court," Williams, 219 F.R.D. at 83 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), and "to prevent the rule from being used as a substitute for appealing a final judgment." USA Certified Merchants, LLC v. Koebel, 273 F. Supp. 2d 501, 503 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). "Reconsideration of a court's previous order is an `extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources.'" Id. (quoting In re Health Mgmt. Sys. Inc. Sec. Litig., 113 F. Supp. 2d 613, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)).
The September 4 Opinion found that New York law limits recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress claims to the `bystander' and `direct duty' theories, and that Plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that they were owed a duty by the Defendants. See Morley, 508 F. Supp. 2d at 247-49.
In its motion for reconsideration, submitted October 12, 2007, the PEC has argued that it should be given the opportunity to brief the issues that were addressed in the September 4 Opinion because the Court overlooked controlling New York caselaw, specifically Comstock v. Wilson, 257 N.Y. 231 (1931), which held that a jury could award damages for emotional distress directly resulting from a physical jarring. See 257 N.Y. at 238-39.
The motion for reconsideration was not timely filed. Furthermore, the applicability of the September 4 Opinion was and shall be limited to the facts presented by these specific Plaintiffs, as counsel for American acknowledged during oral argument on October 24, 2007. There was no evidence of any physical jarring experienced by any of the Plaintiffs and as such, nothing presented by the PEC "might reasonably be expected to alter the court's decision" reached in the September 4 Opinion. Word, 2004 WL 434038, at *2.
For these reasons, the motion shall be denied.
Though the Court declines to reach the issue of whether the PEC has standing to bring this motion, Defendants shall henceforth ensure that the PEC is made aware of any dispositive motion filings for individual plaintiffs.
It is so ordered.