Opinion
02 Civ. 111 (DLC).
October 10, 2006
William Mueller Matthew Schiappa Clemente, Mueller Tobia, P.A. New York, NY, For Plaintiff India.com, Inc.
Sandeep Dalal, pro se For Defendant.
OPINION ORDER
Following an April 18, 2006 Opinion ("April Opinion") entering judgment for the plaintiff in this case, the defendant Sandeep Dalal ("Dalal") brings this motion under Rule 59, Fed.R.Civ.P., to amend the judgment, or in the alternative for a new trial. This case has a long procedural history. The April Opinion was issued following a remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for the limited factual determination of whether EasyLink breached its agreement to pay Dalal a commission on the sale of its subsidiary India.com, Inc. ("ICI") by terminating its agreement to make that sale for the "express purpose of avoiding Dalal's commission." India.com, Inc. v. Dalal, 412 F.3d 315, 324 (2d Cir. 2005). The April Opinion found that Dalal "did not prove at trial that EasyLink breached the agreement to sell ICI for the express purpose of avoiding its duty to pay Dalal's commission." India.com, Inc. v. Dalal, No. 02 Civ. 111 (DLC), 2006 WL 1000398, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 2006). Instead, the trial established that EasyLink terminated the agreement because it "found itself trapped between the terms of the [agreement] and the demands of its creditors."Id. For the following reasons, Dalal's motion for reconsideration is denied.
Judgment for the April Opinion was entered on April 26, 2006. Dalal's motion was filed on May 9, 2006. Being within ten business days of the entry of judgment, his submission is therefore timely.
The standard for a motion to amend a judgment under Rule 59(e), Fed.R.Civ.P., is the same as the standard for a motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3. See Abrahamson v. Bd. of Educ., 237 F. Supp. 2d 507, 510 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). The standard 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." Shrader v. CSX Trans., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). Reconsideration should not be granted "where the moving party seeks solely to relitigate an issue already decided," id., and "a party . . . `may not advance new facts, issues or arguments not previously presented to the court.'"Shamis v. Ambassador Factors Corp., 187 F.R.D. 148, 151 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (citation omitted). A motion for reconsideration may not 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." Questrom v. Federated Dep't Stores, Inc., 192 F.R.D. 128, 131 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
At a December 9, 2005 conference ("December 2005 Conference"), the parties agreed that the remanded issue would be decided based on the record created at trial. As reflected in a December 13 Scheduling Order, the parties were given an opportunity to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and memoranda of law addressing the remanded issue. Based on the record created by the non-jury trial in December 2002 and after considering the parties' new submissions, the April Opinion found that Dalal had not proven that EasyLink terminated the agreement to sell ICI in order to avoid paying Dalal his commission, and entered judgment for EasyLink. The remand from the Court of Appeals was limited in scope to the factual issue of whether EasyLink had breached the agreement for the express purpose of avoiding Dalal's commission. Dalal failed to point to evidence to establish that EasyLink terminated the SPA to deprive him of the commission.
The parties were encouraged to refer to the detailed findings of fact made by the Court following trial, to argue inferences from those facts, or to refer to the trial record and request that the findings of fact be supplemented. The Court observed,
But I am not going to restrict you if you think I overlooked some piece of evidence that was part of the trial record that I should give weight to and consider in connection with additional findings of fact. I'm happy to look at any fact that was presented to me in connection with that trial and consider that also.
In this motion for reconsideration, Dalal has not pointed to any evidence or argument that he made pursuant to the December 13 Scheduling Order that this Court overlooked in issuing the April Opinion. Instead, in his motion for reconsideration Dalal submits an affidavit dated May 1, 2006 and exhibits from the December 2002 trial record which he argues show that EasyLink breached the SPA expressly to deprive him of his commission. Dalal may not submit new facts which were not received at trial, and may not point to trial evidence that he did not discuss or submit pursuant to the December 13 Scheduling Order.
Dalal argues that he was prejudiced by "pretrial guidance," referring apparently to the discussion at the December 2005 Conference. He complains for instance that EasyLink referred to its CEO's email, which had not been part of the trial record. The April Opinion, however, relied exclusively on the trial record. Dalal also complains that he was not "the last party to address the Court," since the parties' submission were made in two simultaneous rounds. At the December 2005 Conference, Dalal was given the opportunity to make the first submission and submit a reply to EasyLink's submissions, or to make a simultaneous submission with EasyLink. He suggested instead that there be two rounds of simultaneous submissions, and that procedure was adopted. In short, in these and other arguments, Dalal has not identified any procedural unfairness or prejudice from the post-remand proceedings.
Dalal also argues that his previous concession on the sole factual issue on remand — an admission that he had never argued that EasyLink terminated the agreement to avoid paying his commission — was mischaracterized in the April Opinion and should not have been relied upon in deciding the remanded issue. See India.com, Inc., 2006 WL 1000398, at *2. He now argues that EasyLink did indeed terminate the agreement precisely to deprive him of his commission. The April Opinion did not rely on the Dalal admission in arriving at the conclusion that Dalal did not carry his burden at trial regarding EasyLink's motivations. Instead, the concession was discussed in the context of addressing Dalal's central argument that he was entitled to recovery if EasyLink breached the agreement regardless of its motives for doing so. Therefore, even if Dalal's concession was misconstrued, it had no impact on the conclusion reached in the April Opinion.
Conclusion
Dalal's motion for reconsideration of the April 18, 2006 Opinion entering judgment for the plaintiff EasyLink is denied.
SO ORDERED.