Opinion
No. 03 Civ. 4110 (SAS)
August 4, 2003
For Plaintiff:
Peter G. Eikenberry, Esq., 74 Trinity Place, Suite 1609, New York, N.Y. 10006, 212-385-1050.
For Defendant:
Joseph C. O'Keefe, Esq., Steven Yarusinsky, Esq., Proskauer Rose LLP, One Newark Center, 18th Floor, Newark, New Jersey 07102, 973-274-3200.
OPINION AND ORDER
On July 30, 2003, this Court issued an opinion and order (the "Order") denying Kenneth Jordan's request for a preliminary injunction against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ("MetLife"). Jordan moves for reconsideration of the Order. For the reasons stated below, the motion for reconsideration is denied.
Familiarity with the Order is assumed. See Kenneth Jordan v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Corp., No. 03 Civ. 4110 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 30, 2003).
I. LEGAL STANDARD
A motion for reconsideration is governed by Local Rule 6.3 and is appropriate where a court overlooks "controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before it on the underlying motion . . . and which, had they been considered, might have reasonably altered the result before the court." Range Rd. Music, Inc. v. Music Sales Corp., 90 F. Supp.2d 390, 392 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995) ("The standard for granting . . . a motion [for reconsideration] is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked — — matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court."). Alternatively, a motion for reconsideration may be granted to "correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Griffin Indus., Inc. v. Petrojam, Ltd., 72 F. Supp.2d 365, 368 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). Local Rule 6.3 should be "narrowly construed and strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the Court." Dellefave v. Access Temps., Inc., No. 99 Civ. 6098, 2001 WL 286771, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2001); see also In re Houbigant. Inc., 914 F. Supp. 997, 1001 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (Local Rule 6.3 motion "is not a motion to reargue those issues already considered when a party does not like the way the original motion was resolved."); Carolco Pictures, Inc. v. Sirota, 700 F. Supp. 169, 170 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (stating that the purpose of Local Rule 6.3 is to "ensure the finality of decisions and to prevent the practice or a losing party examining a decision and then plugging the gaps of a lost motion with additional matters")
II. DISCUSSION
Jordan moves for reconsideration of the Order on the grounds that a preliminary injunction is warranted because he has shown a likelihood of success on merits. See 8/1/03 Letter to the Court from Peter G. Eikenberry, attorney for Jordan, at 1. According to Jordan, the testimony of Chris Riddle and David Mancini during the preliminary injunction hearing establishes that Jordan passed his annual MetLife compliance reviews in the years 1999-2001. See id. at 2. Jordan also argues that MetLife only submitted hearsay evidence that he misinformed clients of various financial planning options. See id.
Neither of Jordan's arguments justify granting his motion for reconsideration. The Court did not overlook any controlling decisions or factual matters. As stated in the Order, Jordan did not show a clear likelihood that he would succeed on the merits of his claim of wrongful termination because of his documented history of non-compliance with MetLife's ethical standards in 1999 and 2000. See Order at 10-12. In addition, the Order is not clearly erroneous or manifestly injust. For the foregoing reasons, Jordan's motion is denied.
A conference will be held on August 5, 2003 at 4:30 p.m.
SO ORDERED: