Danny Donohue, Emps. Ass'n, Inc. v. Thomas J. Madison, Jr., in His Official Capacity Dir. of the N.Y. State Thruway Auth. & the N.Y. State Canal Corp.
| Decision Date | 27 July 2017 |
| Docket Number | 1:14-CV-1043 (FJS/CFH),1:13-CV-920 (FJS/CFH),1:13-CV-918 (FJS/CFH) |
| Parties | DANNY DONOHUE, as President of the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO; CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC., LOCAL 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO; WILLIAM COLEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; WILLIAM MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; JOHN METZGIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and JACK WIEDEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THOMAS J. MADISON, JR., in his official capacity as Executive Director of the New York State Thruway Authority and the New York State Canal Corporation; CARLOS MILAN, in his official capacity as Director of Employee Relations and Employee Safety, New York State Thruway Authority and New York State Canal Corporation; BRIAN U. STRATTON, in his official capacity as Director of the New York State Canal Corporation; HOWARD P. MILSTEIN, in his official capacity as Chairman of New York State Thruway/Canal Corporation Board of Directors; E. VIRGIL CONWAY, in his official capacity as Board Member of the New York State Thruway/Canal Corporation Board of Directors; NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY; NEW YORK STATE CANAL CORPORATION; DONNA J. LUH, in her official capacity as Vice-Chairman of New York State Thruway/Canal Corporation Board of Directors; RICHARD N. SIMBERG, in his official capacity as Board Member of the New York State Thruway/Canal Corporation Board of Directors; BRANDON R. SALL, in his official capacity as Board Member of the New York State Thruway/Canal Corporation Board of Directors; J. DONALD RICE, JR., in his official capacity as Board Member of the New York State Thruway/Canal Corporation Board of Directors; and JOSE HOLGUIN-VERAS, in his official capacity as Board Member of the New York State Thruway/Canal Corporation Board of Directors, Defendants. DANNY DONOHUE, as President of the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO; CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC., LOCAL 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO; JOHN DELLIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; MICHAEL BOULERIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; MAUREEN ALONZO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and MARCOS DIAMANTATOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THOMAS J. MADISON, JR., in his official capacity as Executive Director of the New York State Thruway Authority and the New York State Canal Corporation; CARLOS MILAN, in his official capacity as Director of Employee Relations and Employee Safety, New York State Thruway Authority and New York State Canal Corporation; HOWARD P. MILSTEIN, in his official capacity as Chairman of New York State Thruway/Canal Corporation Board of Directors; E. VIRGIL CONWAY, in his official capacity as Board Member of the New York State Thruway/Canal Corporation Board of Directors; NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY; JOSE HOLGUIN-VERAS, in his official capacity as Board Member of the New York State Thruway/Canal Corporation Board of Directors; DONNA J. LUH, in her official capacity as Vice-Chairman New York State Thruway/Canal Corporation Board of Directors; J. DONALD RICE, JR., in his official capacity as Board Member of New York State Thruway/Canal Corporation Board of Directors; BRANDON R. SALL, in his official capacity as Board Member of New York State Thruway/Canal Corporation Board of Directors; and RICHARD N. SIMBERG, in his official capacity as Board Member of New York State Thruway/Canal Corporation Board of Directors, Defendants. NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY EMPLOYEES LOCAL 72, JOSEPH E. COLOMBO, GEORGE E. SAVOIE; and DAVID M. MAZZEO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs, v. NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY; HOWARD P. MILSTEIN, in his official capacity as Chairman of the New York State Thruway Authority; THOMAS J. MADISON, JR., in his official capacity as Executive Director of the New York State Thruway Authority; THOMAS RYAN, in his official capacity; E. VIRGIL CONWAY, in his official capacity as Board Member of the New York State Thruway Authority; JOHN F. BARR, in his official capacity as Director of Administrative Services of the New York State Thruway Authority; JOHN M. BRYAN, in official capacity as Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the New York State Thruway Authority; DONNA J. LUH, in her official capacity as Vice-Chair of the New York State Thruway/Canal Corporation Board of Directors; J. DONALD RICE, JR., in his official capacity as Board Member of the New York State Thruway Authority; BRANDON R. SALL, in his official capacity as Board Member of the New York State Thruway Authority; RICHARD N. SIMBERG, in his official capacity as Board Member of the New York State Thruway Authority; and JOSE HOLGUIN-VERAS, in his official capacity as Board Member of the New York State Thruway Authority, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
ASSOCIATION, INC.
143 Washington Avenue
P.O. Box 7125, Capitol Station
Albany, New York 12224
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
557 Prospect Avenue
Hartford, Connecticut 06105
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
DREYER, BOYAJIAN LLP
75 Columbia Street
Albany, New York 12210
Attorneys for Defendant Madison
WHITEMAN, OSTERMAN &
One Commerce Plaza
Suite 1900
Albany, New York 12260
Attorneys for all Defendants
except Defendants Madison
and Bryan
E. STEWART JONES HACKLER
MURPHY, LLP
28 Second Street
Troy, New York 12180
Attorneys for Defendant Bryan
AARON E. KAPLAN, ESQ.
JENNIFER C. ZEGARELLI, ESQ.
GREGG D. ADLER, ESQ.
NICOLE M. ROTHBERG, ESQ.
BENJAMIN W. HILL, ESQ.
WILLIAM J. DRYER, ESQ.
BETH A. BOURASSA, ESQ.
CHRISTOPHER W. MEYER, ESQ.
MONICA R. SKANES, ESQ.
NORMA G. MEACHAM, ESQ.
E. STEWART JONES, JR., ESQ.
THOMAS J. HIGGS, ESQ.
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion for reconsideration of the Court's April 14, 2017 Memorandum Decision and Order, pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7.1(g), or, alternatively, to amend that Memorandum-Decision and Order to include certification of an issue to the Second Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). See Dkt. No. 144.
1. Standard of review
Reconsideration "'is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources.'" In re Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc. Secs. Litig., 113 F. Supp. 2d 613, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (quoting Wendy's Int'l, Inc. v. Nu-Cape Construction, Inc., 169 F.R.D. 680, 685 (M.D. Fla. 1996)) (other citations omitted). "The standard for granting such a motion 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, thatmight reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court." Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995) (citations omitted). Generally, there are "'only three possible grounds upon which motions for reconsideration may be granted; they are (1) an intervening change in controlling law, (2) the availability of new evidence not previously available, or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.'" Gaston v. Coughlin, 102 F. Supp. 2d 81, 83 (N.D.N.Y. 2000) (quoting In re C-TC 9th Ave. P'ship, 182 B.R. 1, 3 (N.D.N.Y. 1995) (McAvoy, C.J.)).
It is well-settled that a motion for reconsideration "'is not a vehicle for relitigating old issues, presenting the case under new theories, securing a rehearing on the merits, or otherwise taking a "second bite at the apple[.]"'" Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting Sequa Corp. v. GBJ Corp., 156 F.3d 136, 144 (2d Cir. 1998)). Consequently, a plaintiff "cannot use a motion for reconsideration to advance new facts or arguments and may not submit affidavits or new material." In re Residential Capital, LLC, No. 12-12020, 2016 WL 6783316, *3 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Nov. 10, 2016) (citations omitted).
2. Defendants' grounds for reconsideration
Defendants do not argue that there is new evidence or that there has been an intervening change in the law; rather, Defendants assert that "reconsideration is necessary to remedy at least three clear errors of law." See Dkt. No. 144-1 at 9-10. Specifically, those three putative errors are as follows: (1) the Court incorrectly determined that the holding in Rowland extended strict scrutiny to all employees who are represented by unions during collective bargaining; (2) the Court failed to require Plaintiffs to establish causation; and (3) the Court incorrectly analyzed Plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claim. See generally id.
Defendants first argue that the Court's decision contradicts the express language of Rowland. See id. at 10 (citing State Emp. Bargaining Agent Coalition v. Rowland, 718 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2013)). In doing so, Defendants strongly emphasize several passages in Rowland, in which the court used the term "union membership" but ignore the fact that nothing in Rowland expressly held that the targeting theory was limited to layoffs impacting only full-fledged union members. Rather, as the Court previously explained, "Rowland condemns executing targeted layoffs to further economic bargaining because of the likely negative effect on a person's freedom to associate with a union[.]" See Dkt. No. 142 at 17 (citation omitted).
Moreover, the Court did not err in relying on a statement in the Rowland defendant's subsequent writ of certiorari. The Court's use of that statement was simply to add further context to the layoffs in Rowland and to clarify the otherwise ambiguous references in Rowl...
To continue reading
Request your trial