# Robinson v. Diana Containerships Inc.

> District Court, E.D. New York · September 11, 2019

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10302993

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. New York
- **Decided:** September 11, 2019
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10302993

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------X
JIMMIE O. ROBINSON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff, ORDER
17-CV-6160 (SJF) (SIL)
v.

DIANA CONTAINERSHIPS INC., SYMEON
P. PALIOS, ANDREAS MICHALOPOULOS,
ANASTASIOS MARGARONIS, KALANI
INVESTMENTS LIMITED, MURCHINSON
LTD., and MARC BISTRICER,

Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------X
FEUERSTEIN, District Judge:
By order dated April 30, 2018, the Court, inter alia, (a) granted the motion of lead
plaintiff movants Burcin Ekser, Steven Gerber, and Gianfilippo Mogavero (collectively, the
“Diana Investor Group”) for appointment as lead plaintiff and its selection of Scott+Scott,
Attorneys at Law LLP (“Scott+Scott”) and Pomerantz LLP (“Pomerantz”) as co-lead counsel for
the putative class in this action pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
(“PSLRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B); (b) appointed the Diana Investor Group as lead
plaintiff; (c) approved its selection of Scott+Scott and Pomerantz as co-lead counsel for the
putative class; and (d) denied all competing motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead.
Pending before the Court is a motion for reconsideration of that order submitted by John Novack
and Walter Aerts (the “Novack-Aerts Group”) seeking an order vacating that decision,
appointing it as lead plaintiff, and approving its choice of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
as lead counsel. See Motion, Docket Entry (“DE”) [58]. For the reasons stated below, the
motion for reconsideration is denied.
I. BACKGROUND
Familiarity of the facts of this case is assumed. In brief, the complaint alleges, inter alia,
that defendant Symeon P. Palios (“Palios”), the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the
Board of defendant Diana Containerships Inc. (“Diana”), see Complaint (“Compl.”) ¶6, DE [1],
caused Diana
to engage in a series of manipulative share issuance/sales transactions with
[defendant] Kalani [Investments Limited (“Kalani”)] and related entities.
The manipulative scheme . . . worked as follows: Through his control of
Diana, Palios caused Diana to sell its common shares and securities
convertible into common shares to Kalani at a significant discount to
market price and to file registration statements so that Kalani could resell
these shares into the market. When Kalani’s sales of Diana stock caused
the price of Diana stock to decline, [Diana] would reverse split the stock,
causing a certain number of outstanding shares to be merged into a single
share, and thereby raise the price of Diana stock. Then Diana would again
sell securities to Kalani and the same pattern of transactions would ensue.

Id. ¶21. The case is a class action on behalf of all purchasers of Diana common stock
during the Class Period, which the complaint alleges begins on January 26, 2017, id.
¶ 23, and runs through October 3, 2017. For the purposes of this Order, this Class
Period will be referred to as the “Short CP.”
On October 25, 2017, a second securities class action litigation concerning the allegedly
fraudulent Diana scheme was commenced. See Little v. Diana Containerships Inc., 17-cv-6236
(“Little”). The Little complaint alleges essentially the same scheme over same time period as in
the Robinson complaint, January 26, 2017 through October 3, 2017, inclusive.
A third securities class action concerning Diana was commenced on December 15, 2017.
See Austin v. Diana Containerships Inc., 17-cv-7329 (“Austin”). The Class Period set forth in
the Austin complaint runs from June 9, 2016 through October 3, 2017, inclusive. For the
purposes of this Order, this Class Period will be referred to as the “Long CP.” The Austin
complaint alleges that the first reverse stock split of Diana’s common shares took place on June
9, 2016. Austin Complaint, ¶5.
On December 22, 2017, six motions for appointment as lead plaintiff and as lead counsel
were filed. Several of the motions also sought consolidation of the three cases. At the close of
briefing, two competing applications for lead plaintiff remained, that of the Diana Investor
Group and that of the Novack-Aerts Group.1
On April 30, 2018, this Court issued an oral ruling on the pending motions. See
Transcript of 4/30/18 (“Tr.”), DE [59-1]. Consolidation of the three actions was found to be
appropriate and thus the motions to consolidate were granted. Tr. at 10. As to the appointment

motions, the Court noted that the two remaining applications were timely made and satisfied the
requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leaving the sole issue of “which
group has the higher financial or most substantial loss.” Tr. at 10. With reference to factors set
forth in In re Olsten Corp. Sec. Litig., 3 F. Supp. 2d 286, 295 (E.D.N.Y. 1998), the Court noted
that the loss suffered is the most important appropriate factor.
Turning to the application of the relevant law here, the Court acknowledged the Novack-
Aerts Group’s contention that it was the presumptive lead plaintiff group because it suffered the
largest losses within the Short CP, but found that the Diana Investor Group had the largest
financial loss using the Long CP. The Court determined that use of the “longer, most inclusive
class period identified [. . .] encompasses more potential class members.” Tr. at 11 (quoting In

re Gentiva Sec. Litig., 281 F.R.D. 108, 113 (E.D.N.Y. 2012)). It was further noted that the
Novack-Aerts Group had not shown that the Diana Investor Group lacked cohesion or the ability
to effectively manage the litigation.
The Court also addressed the Novack-Aerts Group’s argument that allegations in the
Austin complaint leading to the use of the Long CP urged by the Diana Investor Group were, to

1 Three applications were withdrawn, and a fourth was never pursued.
use its words, “both implausible and obviously frivolous.” Tr. at 11. The Court expressly
disagreed, finding that reverse stock splitting took place during the longer period. Additional
argument followed on the class period issue and the sufficiency of the allegations in the Austin
complaint. After hearing all the argument, the Court appointed the Diana Investor Group as lead

plaintiff and appointed its choice of counsel, Scott+Scott and Pomerantz, as co-lead counsel.
Pending before the Court is the Novack-Aerts Group’s motion for reconsideration of that order.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
“Motions for reconsideration may be brought pursuant to Rules 59(e) and 60(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local [Civil] Rule 6.3.” U.S. v. Real Prop. & Premises
Located at 249-20 Cambria Ave., Little Neck, N.Y., 21 F. Supp. 3d 254, 259 (E.D.N.Y. 2014). A
motion for reconsideration shall set forth “concisely the matters or controlling decisions which
counsel believes the Court has overlooked.” Local Civil Rule 6.3. 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--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); accord Analytical Surveys, Inc. v.
Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012). Grounds for reconsideration exist only
when the movant “identifies an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new
evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Kolel Beth Yechiel
Mechil of Tartikov, Inc. v. YLL Irrevocable Trust, 729 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal
quotation and citation omitted).
Reconsideration is not, however, “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, 684 F.3d at 52 (internal quotation marks, alterations, and citation
omitted). Nor is it proper to advance new arguments that could have been raised on the original
motion. See, e.g., Salveson v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 166 F. Supp. 3d 242, 248 (E.D.N.Y.
2016) (“A motion for reconsideration is neither an occasion for repeating old arguments
previously rejected nor an opportunity for making new arguments that could have previously
been made” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)), aff’d, 663 F. App’x 71 (2d Cir.

2016); Norton v. Town of Islip, No. 04-CV-3079, 2013 WL 84896, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2013)
(“A motion for reconsideration is ‘not intended as a vehicle for a party dissatisfied with the
Court's ruling to advance new theories that the movant failed to advance in connection with the
underlying motion” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Motions for
reconsideration are committed to the sound discretion of the district court. See Belfiore v.
Procter & Gamble Co., 140 F. Supp. 3d 241, 245 (E.D.N.Y. 2015); Hunt v. Enzo Biochem, Inc.,
No. 06 Civ. 170, 2007 WL 1346652, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2007).
III. DISCUSSION
The Novack-Aerts Group’s motion for reconsideration focuses on the Court’s decision to
consider losses incurred within the Long CP. It argues that if only the Short CP is used, it
suffered the greatest financial loss and thus should be appointed lead plaintiff. In support of its
motion, it argues that the Diana Investor Group “improperly led the Court to believe” that the
Austin complaint contained a valid claim for fraud when in fact, it claims, there are no
allegations of fraud occurring during that part of the Long CP that is not covered by the Short
CP. Novack-Aerts Mem. of Law in Support at 2, DE [59]. The Novack-Aerts Group charges
that the Diana Investor Group has “misrepresented what this case is about ‘in an effort to
manipulate the lead plaintiff determination.’” Id. at 4. It additionally argues that using the
longer class period will not encompass more potential class members because, again, there is no
relief being sought by the class prior to January 26, 2017. In response, the Diana Investor Group
argues, inter alia, that the basis for the Novack-Aerts Group’s motion is simply a rehashing of
arguments made in the original motions and orally before the Court.
This motion for reconsideration constitutes the Novack-Aerts Group’s fourth attempt to
present the same arguments on the same issue. A review of the memoranda submitted by the
Novack-Aerts Group regarding the original motion shows that it raised these exact issues
previously. See Novack-Aerts Group Mem. in Support of Motion for Appointment as Lead
Plaintiff at 1-3, DE [40]; Novack-Aerts Group Reply Mem. at 1-2, 3-5, DE [42]. The Court also
heard oral argument directly on this issue, addressed it, and ruled upon it. On this record, it
cannot be said that the argument was overlooked; at best, the Novack-Aerts Group is merely
attempting to repackage its earlier arguments or state them in a way that could have been raised
in the earlier motion. Accordingly, it has stated no basis for reconsideration of the prior order.
IV. CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, the Novack-Aerts Group’s motion for reconsideration, DE

[58], is denied.
SO ORDERED.

/s/
Sandra J. Feuerstein
United States District Judge

Dated: Central Islip, New York
September 11, 2019

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10302993. Public record. Not legal advice.