United States ex rel. Kolchinsky v. Moody's Corp.

United States ex rel. Kolchinsky v. Moody's Corp.

Opinion

OPINION & ORDER

WILLIAM H. PAULEY III, District Judge:

Relator Ilya Kolchinsky moves pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 59(e) and Local Rule 6.3 for reconsideration of this Court's Opinion and Order, dated March 2, 2017, granting Moody's motion to dismiss this whistleblower action. Kolchinsky's motion is granted in part and denied in part.

BACKGROUND

The factual background of this case is set forth in this Court's prior Opinion and Order. United States ex rel. Kolchinsky v. Moody's Corp., 238 F. Supp. 3d 550, 2017 WL 825478 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) ("Moody's I"). In short, Kolchinsky brought this action on behalf of the United States of America against Moody's Corporation and Moody's Investors Service, Inc. under the False Claims Act ("FCA"), 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq, alleging that he was constructively discharged after protesting Moody's practice of issuing false credit ratings. This Court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss [*2]  because the Second Amended Complaint failed to state a valid FCA claim.

DISCUSSION

A motion to alter or amend a judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) is evaluated under the same standard as a motion for reconsideration under Local Rule 6.3. Williams v. N.Y. Dep't. of Corr., 219 F.R.D. 78, 83 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). Such motions "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 Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). Reconsideration is warranted only "if the moving party establishes: (1) a change in the controlling law; (2) new evidence has become available; or (3) reconsideration is necessary to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., No. 06-CV-2692, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45402, 2009 WL 1514310, at *1-2 (S.D.N.Y. May 29, 2009), aff'd, 684 F.3d 36 (2d Cir. 2012). The motion "cannot assert new arguments or claims which were not before this court on the original motion." Koehler v. Bank of Berm., Ltd., No. M18-302, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8694, 2005 WL 1119371, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May, 10, 2005). The decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is within the sound discretion of the district court. McCarthy v. Manson, 714 F.2d 234, 237 (2d Cir.1983).

I. Motion to Dismiss

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.