137 F. Supp. 3d 336
W.D.N.Y.2015Background
- SPI sued CUNA for breach of contract over an earnout calculation and separately raised an "experience rate refund" claim; the district court previously granted summary judgment in part and dismissed remaining claims after SPI voluntarily asked to dismiss the experience-refund claim so it could appeal.
- The Second Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded, holding a triable issue existed about CUNA’s earnout calculation but noting SPI abandoned the legal basis for the experience-refund deductions on appeal.
- On remand the court clarified (July 21, 2015) that the experience-rate-refund claim had been dismissed and was not revived by the Second Circuit’s decision.
- SPI moved for reconsideration to allow the jury to consider the experience-rate-refund issue as part of its remanded earnout claim, arguing the issue is a component of damages, not a standalone claim.
- CUNA opposed; the court denied reconsideration, concluding SPI voluntarily abandoned the experience-refund claim (effectively with prejudice) to permit an immediate appeal and therefore cannot revive it now.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should reconsider and allow SPI to present experience-rate refunds at trial | Experience-rate refunds are part of the remanded earnout breach-of-contract claim (component of damages), not a separate claim | SPI voluntarily dismissed that claim and cannot revive it; remand did not resurrect it | Denied — court will not reconsider; experience-refund issue remains out of the case |
| Whether SPI’s prior dismissal of the experience-refund claim was effectively with prejudice and bars revival | Dismissal should not bar consideration as it pertains to remanded issue | Dismissal enabled immediate appeal and thus was effectively final; plaintiff abandoned claim | Held that SPI’s dismissal amounted to abandonment; claim not revived on remand |
| Whether Rule 54(b) or Rule 60(b) provides relief to revive the claim | Rule 54(b) or 60(b) relief is available to correct the court’s July 21 order | Such rules do not apply because no clear error or extraordinary circumstances exist | Denied — neither Rule 54(b) nor 60(b) justifies relief |
| Whether reconsideration standard is met (clear error or manifest injustice) | Court erred in treating the issue as a separate claim | No clear error; motion is reargument of prior decision and lacks extraordinary circumstances | Denied — motion is improper reargument and fails the high standard for reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Shrader v. CSX Transp., 70 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 1995) (motions for reconsideration should not be used to reargue previously decided issues)
- Munafo v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 381 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2004) (reconsideration appropriate to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice)
- Rabbi Jacob Joseph School v. Province of Mendoza, 425 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. 2005) (voluntary dismissal without prejudice to pursue an immediate appeal is impermissible; dismissal can make appeal improper)
- Yesh Music v. Lakewood Church, 727 F.3d 356 (5th Cir. 2013) (Rule 60(b)(6) cannot be used to undo the consequences of a voluntary dismissal)
- Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58 (2d Cir. 1986) (Rule 60(b)(6) is for extraordinary circumstances or extreme hardship)
- Cioce v. County of Westchester, 128 Fed.Appx. 181 (2d Cir. 2005) (reconsideration requires showing of intervening law, new evidence, or clear error)