United States District Court, D. Connecticut
REBECCA M. MURILLO, Plaintiff,
A BETTER WAY WHOLESALE AUTOS, INC and WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC, Defendants.
Vanessa L. Bryant United States District Judge
before the Court are three motions. First, Plaintiff Rebecca
Murillo's moves for reconsideration of the Court's
Order entering judgment for the Plaintiff. [Dkt. 72]. Also,
pending is Defendants' motion to stay enforcement of the
judgment pending appeal [Dkt. 77] and a joint motion for a
settlement conference [Dkt. 79]. The Court DENIES
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and GRANTS
Defendants' motion to stay enforcement of the judgment,
subject to the parties' stipulation [Dkt. 78]. The Court
DENIES without prejudice the joint motion for referral to a
U.S. Magistrate Judge for a settlement Conference.
Motion for Reconsideration [Dkt. 72]
to D. Conn. Local Rule 7(c), “Motions for
reconsideration shall not be routinely filed and shall
satisfy the strict standard applicable to such motions. Such
motions will generally be denied unless the movant can point
to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked in
the initial decision or order.” The standard for filing
a motion for reconsideration in this circuit is well
established and set forth in the Local Rules of this
standard for a motion for reconsideration is strict, and
reconsideration will generally be denied and should only be
filed in unusual circumstances. Shrader v. CSX Transp.,
Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). A motion for
reconsideration will only be granted, and should only be
sought in good faith after a diligent inquiry, on one of the
following three grounds: (1) an intervening change in the
law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to
correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.
Virgin Atlantic Airways, Ltd. v. Nat'l Mediation
Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992).
no circumstances should a motion to reconsider be granted
where the movant re-files a motion on which the court has
already ruled, seeking solely to relitigate an issue already
decided. Shrader v. Can. Transportation, 70 F.3d
255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). Courts must fairly and accurately
resolve disputes in a timely manner and cannot do so if it
rules on individual motions multiple times.
principle applies equally where a party advances an argument
previously made on the same grounds or advances a new
argument which it could have but failed to advance in the
first instance. “Where the parties have battled for the
court's decision they should not be required, nor without
good reason, be permitted to battle for it again.”
Virgin Atlantic Airways, Ltd., 956 F.2d at 1255.
Under “the law of the case” doctrine, when a
court has ruled on an issue, that decision should be adhered
to by that court in subsequent stages in the same case unless
cogent and compelling reasons militate otherwise.”
Johnson v. Holder, 564 F.2d 95, 99 (2d. Cir. 2009)
(internal quotation marks omitted). A motion for
reconsideration must be accompanied by “a memorandum
setting forth concisely the controlling decisions or data the
movant believes the Court overlooked.” D. Conn. L.
Civil R. 7(c).
does not contest any aspect of the Court's ruling on
Plaintiff's motion for entry of judgment. [Dkt. 72 at 1].
Plaintiff's motion for judgment [Dkt. 40 at 2] stated:
Interest of 8% per annum is to be paid on any amounts not
paid within 30 days of the date of the award…
The plaintiff hereby moves that this matter be reopened.
Plaintiff further applies for an order confirming the award
as a judgment of this Court pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 9.
did not calculate and ask the Court to include interest in a
sum certain in the judgment. [Dkt. 40]; See also
[Dkt. 64]. Consequently, the Court granted Plaintiff's
motions for judgment twice, in neither case computing or
stating the specific amount of interest. [Dkt. 58]; [Dkt.
71]. Only after judgment entered the second time did
Plaintiff move to reopen the case and modify the judgment to
include interest in a sum certain.
to calculate the interest owed would not correct a clear
error or prevent manifest injustice. The arbitration award is
clear and unambiguous and anyone could calculate the interest
owed. Plaintiff points to neither controlling decisions or
data that the Court overlooked in the initial order. On the
contrary, the Court entered the judgment Plaintiff requested.
[Dkt. 71]. The motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
entry of judgment as set forth in the Court's October 10,
2019 Order, confirming the arbitration award remains in
effect without modification. [Dkt. 71].
Motion to Stay Enforcement of Judgment ...