United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
A. BOLDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
February 5, 2015, John Doe sued The Hotchkiss School
(“Defendant” or “Hotchkiss”) for
negligence, recklessness, intentional infliction of emotional
distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and
breach of fiduciary duty related to alleged sexual abuse
while he attended Hotchkiss. Complaint, ECF No. 1.
March 8, 2019, the Court ruled on Hotchkiss's motion for
summary judgment, dismissing the intentional infliction of
emotional distress claim but allowing all other claims to
proceed to trial. Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part
Hotchkiss's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 296.
March 15, 2019, Hotchkiss moved for reconsideration on the
Court's breach of fiduciary duty finding. Motion for
Reconsideration, ECF No. 302.
April 4, 2019, John Doe filed a memorandum in opposition to
Hotchkiss's reconsideration motion. Memorandum in
Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 305.
April 17, 2019, Hotchkiss filed a reply brief supporting its
motion for reconsideration. Reply to Response, ECF No. 306.
following reasons, the Court DENIES the
motion for reconsideration.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party
to move to “alter or amend a judgment” no later
than 28 days after the entry of the judgment. Courts consider
a motion made under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure a motion for reconsideration. See Krohn v. N.Y.
City Police Dep't., 341 F.3d 177, 179 (2d Cir. 2003)
(noting that a party timely filed for reconsideration under
Fed R. Civ. P. 59(e)). “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-
maters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to
alter the conclusion reached by the court.” Shrader
v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995);
Lora v. O'Heaney, 602 F.3d 106, 111 (2d Cir.
motion for reconsideration should be granted only where the
defendant identifies “an intervening change of
controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the
need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest
injustice.” Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat'l
Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992)
(internal citations omitted); Kolel Bell Yechiel Mechil
of Tartikov, Inc. v. YLL Irrevocable Tr., 729 F.3d 99,
104 (2d Cir. 2013).
neither the law nor facts have changed since the Court's
ruling denying Hotchkiss's summary judgment motion
regarding the breach of fiduciary duty claim. As a result,
Hotchkiss must identify a clear error on the part of the
Court for its motion to succeed.
argues that the Court overlooked decisions that it expects
would alter its conclusion on the breach of fiduciary duty
claim. Memorandum of Law in Support of Hotchkiss School's
Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 303, at 3.
Hotchkiss's core argument is that the Court found that
the fiduciary relationship in this case was based on the duty
of the care of negligence, not the loyalty and honesty of a
fiduciary duty claim. Id. According to Hotchkiss,
the Court must find fraud, self-dealing, or a conflict of
interest for there to be a fiduciary duty. Id. at 3,
relies on three arguments. First Hotchkiss relies on
Sherwood v. Danbury Hosp., 278 Conn. 163, 196 (2006)
to support its claim that fraud, self-dealing, or a conflict
of interest is necessary for a breach of fiduciary duty.
Second, Hotchkiss relies on Golek v. Saint Mary's
Hosp., Inc., 133 Conn.App. 182, 198 (2012), Pawloski
v. Delta Sigma Phi, No. CV030484661S, 2009 Conn. Super.
LEXIS 170, at *17 (Conn. Super Ct. Jan. 23, 2009)), and
Knelman v. Middlebury College, 570 Fed.Appx. 66 (2d
Cir. 2014) (summary order) to support the proposition that
colleges do not have a special relationship with their
students. Third, Hotchkiss relies on Judge Arterton's
conclusions in Bass v. Miss Porter's Sch., 738
F.Supp.2d 307 (D. Conn. 2010) and Brownville v. Indian
Mtn. Sch., No. 3:14-cv-1472 (JBA), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
139891 (D. Conn. Aug. ...