Opinion
05 Civ. 0107 (RWS).
April 18, 2006
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff pro se Matthew Krepps ("Krepps") has moved pursuant to Rules 59(e), 15, 37, and 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to amend the judgment entered in this action on February 10, 2006, to amend the complaint to conform to the proof, for additional discovery, for additional time to serve the amended complaint, and granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.
A motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e), to alter or amend judgments, is appropriate only in those instances where a court has overlooked "`controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before it on the underlying motion' and which, if examined, might reasonably have led to a different result." Saunders v. Edwards, No. 03 Civ. 1087 (NRB), 2003 WL 23021948, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2003) (quotingEisemann v. Greene, 204 F.3d 393, 395 n. 2 (2d Cir. 2000)).See also Gemmy Indus. Corp. v. Chrisha Creations Ltd., No. 04 Civ. 1074 (RWS), 2005 WL 734984 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2005) (Rule 59(e) motion denied where movant "failed to demonstrate that the Court overlooked any factual matters or controlling legal authority"). Rule 59(e) is not "an appropriate vehicle for a party dissatisfied with a court's ruling to secure a rehearing on the merits with respect to issues already decided." See, e.g., Pasha v. William M. Mercer Consulting, Inc., No. 00 Civ. 8362 (RWS), 2004 WL 1474694, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2004). Rule 59(e) is not the proper forum for "rehashed arguments considered and rejected in the underlying motion." Williamsburg Fair Hous. Comm. v. New York City Hous. Auth., No. 76 Civ. 2125 (RWS), 2005 WL 2175998, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2005). Because Krepps has failed to identify legal or factual issues overlooked by the Court when it decided the underlying motion, the legal precedent of this Circuit and prior decisions of this Court require that the motion be denied. Pasha, 2004 WL 1474694, at *1 (denying Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment dismissing discrimination claim).
"Applications to alter or amend judgments under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or for reconsideration under S.D.N.Y. Local Rule 6.3 are evaluated under the same standard."Word v. Croce, No. 01 Civ. 9614 (LTS), 2004 WL 434038, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2004) (citations omitted).
See also Eon Labs, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 05 Civ. 0002 (LAP), 2005 WL 2848952 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2005) (denying Rule 59(e) motion to amend judgment dismissing underlying action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction); U2 Home Entm't, Inc. v. Lai Ying Music Video Training, Inc., No. 04 Civ. 1233 (DLC), 2005 WL 2230454 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2005) (denying Rule 59(e) motion seeking to amend, modify, or withdraw judgment in copyright infringement action); Women's Interart Ctr., Inc. v. New York City Econ. Devel. Corp., No. 03 Civ. 2732 (DAB), 2005 WL 1844611 (Aug. 3, 2005) (denying Rule 59(e) motion to reconsider and vacate entry of summary judgment and decision to convert motion to dismiss into a summary judgment motion).
In addition, Krepps' motion to file an amended complaint fails because there is little reason to believe that such amendment would alter the Court's judgment dismissing the complaint. See, e.g., McCullagh v. Merrill Lynch Co., No. 01 Civ. 7322 (DAB), 2004 WL 744484, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2004). While Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) affords district courts the authority to grant leave to amend "when justice so requires," a court is free to "deny leave to amend when it determines that amendment would be futile." Id. at *2. In this case, Krepps has offered no factual or legal basis to suggest that amending the complaint would change the analysis contained in this Court's February 8, 2006 order.
As to reopening discovery,
discovery is authorized solely for parties to develop the facts in a lawsuit in which a plaintiff has stated a legally cognizable claim, not in order to permit a plaintiff to find out whether he has such a claim, and still less to salvage a lawsuit that has already been dismissed for failure to state a claim.Podany v. Robertson Stephens, Inc., 350 F. Supp. 2d 375, 378 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
To the extent that the defendant Insead seeks to sanction Krepps by its opposition to his motion, that motion is denied. Whether the conduct of this pro se plaintiff is actionable will be left for another action.
It is so ordered.