Ager v. Goodell

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK wee KX LEON MAURICE AGER, at al., : Plaintiffs, : 25-CV-3630 (JMF) -v- : ORDER ROGER GOODELL, et al., : Defendants. : wee KX JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: On June 4, 2025, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction and directing Plaintiffs to show good cause in writing why their Complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 9. On July 7, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint purporting to cure the jurisdictional defects identified by the Court. ECF No. 15. On July 8, 2025, Plaintiffs submitted a motion for reargument, which the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration of its prior Order. ECF No. 14. Plaintiffs present no valid grounds for reconsideration, so the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. See, e.g., Analytical Survs., Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012) (“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. Rather, the standard for granting a . . . motion for reconsideration is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked.” (cleaned up)). As to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint and response to the Court’s Order, ECF No. 13, the Court agrees that the Amended Complaint properly alleges that the Court possesses jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. By separate order, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to issue summonses for all Defendants named in the Amended Complaint.

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 14.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 17, 2025 New York, New York ESSE RMAN nited States District Judge