*1 WE){LER, District Judge:

On January 9, 2018, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order (the "Order") granting in part and denying in part Petitioner's motion for a judgment on the pleadings, pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner riow requests reconsideration of that Order or, in the alternative, for leave to file an interlocutory appeal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Claimant opposes both requests.

Petitioner's request for reconsideration is denied. In its letter motion requesting reconsideration, Petitioner submits the exact same case law it put before the Court in support of its underlying motion for a judgment on the pleadings, which the Court cons~dered thoroughly in rendering its Order. Petitioner is attempting to do exactly what motions for reconsideration prohibit -. reargue the position already considered and rejected by the Court. While Petitioner may be unhappy that the Court did not accept its interpretation and application of the case law it submitted, that is not grounds for reconsideration.

The Court will, however, grant Petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The Court agrees that there does appear to be some confusion among the various courts as to the interaction between the Jones Act and the general maritime

-1-

law, warranting review and clarification by the Second Circuit.

Accordingly, Petitioner's request that the Court certify its January 9, 2018 Memorandum and Order for interlocutory appeal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), is granted. This action will be administratively closed pending disposition by the Second Circuit of the interlocutory appeal. The parties are directed to notify the Court within thirty (30) days of the Second Circuit's decision on the interlocutory appeal if they seek to reopen this action.

SO ORDERED:

Dated: Central Islip, New York

January 22, 2018 .// /1 /\ --

-2- .