Tantaros

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ANDREA K. TANTAROS,

Plaintiff,

| 25-cv-1675 (SHS)

-y-

FOX NEWS NETWORK, LLC, FOX | ORDER

CORPORATION, INC., ROGER AILES,

WILLIAM SHINE, JOHN FINLEY, SCOTT

BROWN, and SUZANNE SCOTT,

Defendants.

SIDNEY H. STEIN, U.S. District Judge.

Plaintiff Andrea K. Tantaros requests relief from the Court’s March 27, 2026

Opinion and Order, Tantaros v. Fox News Network, LLC, No. 25-cv-1675, 2026 WL 852744

(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2026), dismissing her claim against defendant Scott Brown. (Dkt.

Nos. 131, 132.)

Although Tantaros designates her motion as seeking relief from a final order

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), that rule is not the appropriate

avenue by which to seek relief from the Court’s March 27, 2026 decision. That decision

is anon-final order because it does not “conclusively determine[] all pending claims of

all the parties to th[is] litigation.” Petrello v. White, 533 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2008); see

Wallace v. Morse, No. 25-1129, 2025 WL 3083068, at *1 (2d Cir. Oct. 1, 2025) (noting that

“an order dismissing some, but not all, defendants from an action” is not an appealable

final order). Accordingly, and in light of Tantaros’s pro se status, the Court construes

Tantaros’s motion liberally to be a request for reconsideration of the Court’s March 27,

2026 decision. See United States v. Pilcher, 950 F.3d 39, 44 (2d Cir. 2020).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has stated that “[t]he 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). “Alternately, the movant must demonstrate the need to correct a clear error or

prevent manifest injustice.” Fed. Treasury Enter. Sojuzplodoimport v. Spirits Int’l B.V.,

No. 14-cv-712, 2026 WL 1256402, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2026) (citation omitted).

Tantaros does not meet the demanding standard to warrant reconsideration.

Tantaros contends that the Court made an error of fact in finding that Tantaros had

failed to serve Brown properly and an error of law in concluding that Tantaros’s claim

against Brown was untimely. (See Dkt. No. 131 at 2.) These are simply attempts at

“second bite[s] at the apple,” Analytical Survs., Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52

(2d Cir. 2012) (citation omitted), on issues Tantaros argued thoroughly in opposition to

Brown's motion to dismiss and on which the Court ruled against Tantaros. The

suggestion in Tantaros’s reply brief (Dkt. No. 135 at 1) that reconsideration is warranted

“because the Court's conclusion that dismissal would not prejudice [Tantaros] rested

upon an incomplete assessment of the legal and practical consequences” of the

dismissal of Tantaros’s claim is similarly unavailing, particularly because the Court's

March 27, 2026 decision was based on no such conclusion. The Court’s dismissal of

Tantaros’s claim against Brown was “without prejudice” to Tantaros asserting a claim

pursuant to the newly created section 10-1104.1 of the New York City Victims of

Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law. See Tantaros, 2026 WL 852744, at * 1, *2 n.2,

*4-5, *6,

For the foregoing reasons, Tantaros’s request for reconsideration of the Court's

March 27, 2026 Opinion and Order is denied.

Dated: New York, New York

July 27, 2026

SO ORDERED:

Sidney H\ Stein, U.S.D]J.