Center for Food Safety, Inc. v. Wood Farms, LLC

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________________________________________
Center for Food Safety, Inc.,
Plaintiff,
v. 5:23-CV-399
(MJK)
Wood Farms, LLC.
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
Charles M. Tebbutt, Esq., for Plaintiff
Donald E. Spurrell, Esq., for Plaintiff
David L. Cook, Esq., for Defendants
Nicholas Roberts, Esq., for Defendants
Mitchell J. Katz, United States Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER
I. BACKGROUND
In this Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act)
case, Center for Food Safety alleges that pollutants from Wood Farms’
production area is reaching the farm’s inlets and polluting the
navigable waters of the United States. On December 11, 2025, this
Court heard oral argument on the Food Safety’s motion for partial
summary judgment. About two months later, this Court denied Food
Safety’s motion. (Dkt. 155). Now, Food Safety moves for reconsideration.
(Dkt. 159). Wood Farms responded. (Dkt. 162).
Case 5:23-cv-00399-MJK Document 164 Filed 04/06/26 Page 1 of 5

2
II. DISCUSSION
The Court denies Food Safety’s motion for reconsideration
because it does not even attempt to reach the standard’s
high burden.
The Court denies Food Safety’s motion for reconsideration.
District Courts can only grant a motion for reconsideration if the
movant identifies: (1) intervening change of controlling law, (2) the
availability of new evidence, or (3) the need to correct a clear error or
prevent manifest injustice. Here, Food Safety does not claim that the
law has changed, there is new evidence, or that there is clear error or
manifest injustice. In consequence, the motion is denied.
District Courts have the “inherent power to reconsider any of its
own entries prior to the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the
claims.” Blond v. Leonard, 277 F. Supp. 3d 420, 423 (W.D.N.Y. 2017)
(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)). But “reconsideration of earlier decisions
under Rule 54(b)” are limited because “those decisions [are] law of the
case.” Blond, 277 F. Supp. 3d at 423 (quoting Official Comm. Of
Unsecured Creditors of the Color Tile, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, LLP.,
Case 5:23-cv-00399-MJK Document 164 Filed 04/06/26 Page 2 of 5

3
332 F.3d 147, 167 (2d Cir. 2003)).1 “Where litigants have once battled
for the court’s decision, they should neither be required, nor without
good reason permitted, to battle for it again.” Zdanok v. Glidden Co.,
Durkee Famous Foods Div., 327 F.2d 944, 953 (2d Cir. 1964) (cleaned
up). So district courts can “only” grant “[a] motion for reconsideration . .
. when the [movant] identifies [(1)] an intervening change of controlling
law, [(2)] the availability of new evidence, or [(3)] the need to correct a
clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil of
Tartikov, Inc. v. YLL Irrevocable Tr., 729 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir. 2013).
Center for Food Safety is not entitled to reconsideration. To start,
Food Safety has not identified any change in controlling law. See
generally (CFS Mot. for Reconsideration, Dkt. 159). Food Safety’s first
“argument[] [is], in essence, [an] attempt[] to relitigate issues discussed
in the prior Decision and Order.” Blond, 277 F. Supp. 3d at 424. So Food
Safety’s motion for reconsideration cannot be granted on the grounds of
an intervening change in controlling law.” Id. Next, Food Safety’s
motion does not identify newly discovered evidence. See generally (CFS
1 Food Safety moves for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), not Fed. R. Civ.
P. 59 as Wood Farm suggests. Compare (CFS. Mot. for reconsideration, Dkt. 159, at
pg. 1) with (Wood Farms response, Dkt. 162, at pg. 2).
Case 5:23-cv-00399-MJK Document 164 Filed 04/06/26 Page 3 of 5

4
Mot. for Reconsideration, Dkt. 159). Again, Food Safety fails to meet the
reconsideration standard. See Ceccarelli v. Morgan Stanley Priv. Bank,
N.A., No. 25-443-CV, 2025 WL 2992528, at *4 (2d Cir. Oct. 24, 2025)
(summary order) (finding “no abuse of discretion in the denial of the
reconsideration motion, which sought to relitigate issues already
decided and failed to identify any new legal or factual matter
overlooked by the district court.”). Finally, “the Court” neither “clearly
err[ed] in its prior Decision and Order nor does [Food Safety] point to a
manifest injustice that would compel reconsideration. Blond, 277 F.
Supp. 3d at 425 (denying motion for reconsideration). In short, the
Court declines to reconsider Food Safety’s motion for partial summary
judgment. See, e.g., Marvin v. Allen, No. 23-CV-5947, 2025 WL 1911558,
at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 11, 2025) (denying the motion for reconsideration
because “[the movant] raise[d] the same arguments previously
dismissed and fails to assert any intervening change of controlling law,
new evidence, or clear error that would warrant reconsideration.”).
III. CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, based on the findings above, it is
Case 5:23-cv-00399-MJK Document 164 Filed 04/06/26 Page 4 of 5

5
ORDERED, that Center for Food Safety’s motion for
reconsideration (Dkt. 159) is DENIED.
Dated: April 6th, 2026 __________________________
Hon. Mitchell J. Katz
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Case 5:23-cv-00399-MJK Document 164 Filed 04/06/26 Page 5 of 5