OPINION AND ORDER This Court dismissed plaintiffs’ Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (“SCAC”) against individual defendants Jeffrey Atkins (known as Ja Rule) and Grant Margolin with prejudice, and granted plaintiffs limited leave to replead with respect to particular allegations against defendant Atkins. (Opinion and Order of July 10, 2019 (the “July 10 Order”); Doc 90); In re Fyre Festival Litig., No. 17-cv-3296 (PKC), 2019 WL 3006629 (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2019). Fairly read, the SCAC alleges an overly-ambitious plan for the Fyre Festival that became a fraudulent scheme when one or more participants learned that the luxury experience they had promised was no longer feasible, but continued to market the Festival with statements they knew to be false. For each plaintiff, the moment when he or she learned of a statement (later proved to have been false) and acted in reliance upon it — for example, by buying a ticket — may be different. This Court rejected plaintiffs’ conclusory assertions that they relied on defendants’ representations about the Festival as insufficient to state a claim for fraud. (Doc 90 at 15; Doc 56
102, 144.) In the case of Margolin, plaintiffs failed to allege a false statement with the particularity required by Rule 9(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and, in the case of Atkins, plaintiffs alleged an actionable false statement, but failed to allege that they acted in reliance thereon. Plaintiffs now move for reconsideration of the dismissal of Margolin (Doc 100) and for leave to file a Third Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (“TCAC”) amending the claims against Atkins. (Docs 102-104.) For the reasons set forth below, plaintiffs’ motions will be denied. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION I. Legal Standard Plaintiffs move for reconsideration pursuant to Rules 59(e) and 60(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. (Doc 100 at 1.) The motion will be construed as brought under Local Rule 6.3. Kassman v. KPMG LLP, No. 11 Civ. 3743 (LGS), 2015 WL 5775866, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2015). “The standards for relief under Local Rule 6.3 and Rule 59(e) are identical.” Burke v. Solomon Acosta & FASCore/Great W. & MTA/NYC Transit Auth., No. 07 CIV. 9933 (PKC), 2009 WL 10696111, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2009), aff’d sub nom. Burke v. Acosta, 377 F. App’x 52 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Motions for reconsideration are held to strict standards, “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). Motions for reconsideration are not vehicles for the moving party to relitigate an issue the Court already decided. Cordero v. Astrue, 574 F. Supp. 2d 373, 380 (S.D.N.Y. 2008); see also Shrader, 70 F.3d at 257. A motion for reconsideration may be granted based upon “an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat’l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also NEM Re Receivables, LLC v. Fortress Re, Inc., 187 F. Supp. 3d 390, 396-97 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (analyzing a motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and Local Rule 6.3 under these three grounds). Plaintiffs have not shown that reconsideration is warranted here. II. Availability of New Evidence “New evidence” must be “‘evidence that was truly newly discovered or could not have been found by due diligence.’” NEM Re Receivables, LLC v. Fortress Re, Inc., 187 F. Supp. 3d 390, 396 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (quoting Space Hunters, Inc. v. U.S., 500 F. App’x 76, 81 (2d Cir. 2012)). The evidence to which plaintiffs now point is neither properly considered on a motion for reconsideration nor “new.” A. Plaintiffs’ and Abbas Ali’s Declarations Appended to plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration are three declarations — two from named plaintiffs Ritu Jutla and Daniel Jung, and one from putative class member Abbas Ali — along with a declaration from plaintiffs’ attorney. Local Rule 6.3 provides that “[n]o affidavits shall be filed by any party unless directed by the Court.” Where a “court did not direct any such filings, nor did [the party] request permission to submit a declaration with his motion for reconsideration,” the court “does not consider the declaration or accompanying exhibit in deciding [the] motion.” Ramasamy v. Essar Glob. Ltd., No. 11 Civ. 3912 (JSR), 2012 WL 168173, at *1, n.1 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2012). Even if the Court were to consider these declarations, they do not provide the particularity that the Court found lacking in plaintiffs’ SCAC. (Doc 90 at 9-13.) They do not state when a particular named plaintiff relied on any individual statement by Margolin. (Doc 101-2.) These declarations do not present “new evidence” that supply the missing particulars that the Court previously identified, and thus do not provide a basis for the Court to reconsider its July 10 Order.1 B. Emails from Jacqueline Veit to Plaintiffs’ Counsel In deciding the motions to dismiss, this Court afforded defendant Margolin the special solicitude to which a pro se party is entitled. On their motion to reconsider, plaintiffs submit emails between their counsel and Jacqueline Veit of the law firm Golenbock Eiseman Assor Bell & Peskoe LLP. (Doc 101-1.) Plaintiffs argue that Ms. Veit has been representing defendant Margolin in this action, and therefore, that Margolin is not actually a pro se party. (Doc 100 at 3-4, 14-15.) Specifically, plaintiffs state that Ms. Veit emailed plaintiffs’ counsel after the Court issued the July 10 Order, asking plaintiffs to remove Margolin’s name and the allegations against him from their proposed TCAC. (Doc 100 at 3.) As a result, plaintiffs argue, Margolin is actually a represented party and has “perpetrated a fraud on this Court” by proceeding as a pro se litigant. (Id.) Plaintiffs’ argument that Margolin has “perpetrated a fraud on this Court” by holding himself out as a pro se defendant is baseless. Margolin’s receipt of legal assistance from Ms. Veit’s firm was disclosed to the Court and plaintiffs’ counsel in footnote one to Margolin’s memorandum of law in support of his motion to dismiss. (Doc 74 at 1, n.1.) Simply because Margolin has received assistance in drafting his papers does not mean that he is “represented” in this action. Where, for example, a defendant “was assisted in preparing his answer to the complaint and opposition to summary judgment” by an attorney, he was still considered “technically pro se.” CIT Grp./Commercial Servs., Inc. v. Prisco, 640 F. Supp. 2d. 401, 407 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). Margolin’s status as a pro se litigant was not a deciding factor in the Court’s July 10 Order. The Court ruled as it did because plaintiffs failed to attribute specific statements to Margolin, to plead Margolin’s “involvement in the alleged fraud…with requisite particularity,” or to establish “good cause for further leave to amend…[to] add allegations [against] Margolin.” (Doc 90 at 12, 19, 31.) Margolin’s status as pro se was collateral to the failures of plaintiffs’ pleading. (See id. at 31: “Margolin is proceeding pro se and would be prejudiced by further delay in this action and additional briefing. This is particularly true considering that the new allegations do not appear to add anything that would correct the deficiencies leading to dismissal of claims against Margolin.”) Therefore, Margolin’s pro se status and assistance he has received from Ms. Veit are not a basis for reconsideration of the Court’s July 10 Order. C. Fyre Festival Documentaries Plaintiffs further contend that two documentaries about the Festival, both of which were released in January 2019, are sources of “new evidence” of allegedly false statements by Margolin on which they relied.2 (Doc 100 at 10.) However, these documentaries are neither new evidence, nor do they supply missing particularities or correct deficiencies in the SCAC. First, documentary films released over six months before the Court issued its motion to dismiss decision are not “new evidence.” “‘New evidence’ is evidence that existed at the time of the motion, but was unavailable to the movant when the Court made its previous ruling and could not have been found by due diligence.” Amtrust N. Am., Inc. v. Safebuilt Ins. Servs., Inc., No. 14 Civ. 09494 (CM), 2015 WL 9480080, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2015). These films were available to plaintiffs — and to the entire public — well before the Court issued its July 10 Order. Plaintiffs do not explain why, if they believed these documentaries contained material information relating to claims against Margolin, they did not, upon viewing the documentaries, seek leave to include the content in an amended pleading. Plaintiffs cannot “treat the court’s initial decision as the opening of a dialogue in which [they] may then use such a motion to advance new theories or adduce new evidence in response to the court’s rulings.” Perdomo v. Decker, No. 17 Civ. 3268 (AKH), 2017 WL 428088, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Second, the statements from the documentaries that plaintiffs attribute to Margolin fail to supply the missing particulars that the Court identified in its July 10 Order. Plaintiffs allege that the documentaries show Margolin, among others, continuing to market the Festival despite knowledge that it would not be the luxury experience they promised. Plaintiffs state that the documentaries show Margolin “directing” members of the marketing team to post videos and generally acting as the “point guy” for Festival promotion, including by instructing the “F*ck Jerry” marketing team to delete negative comments about the Festival on social media.3 (Doc 100 at 5-6, 11.) These allegations, like those in the SCAC, fail to point to any particular statements made specifically by Margolin, and instead re-state the general assertions that Margolin was heavily involved in Fyre marketing. (Doc 90 at 12, 19.) Additionally, these allegations fail to establish that any plaintiff specifically saw or heard a particular statement made by Margolin, nor when he or she relied on a statement to his or her detriment. Plaintiffs point to the declarations appended to their motion for reconsideration as evidence that they “saw and relied upon these statements and deletions to their detriment.” (Doc 100 at 7.) Even if the Court were to consider plaintiffs’ declarations, they do not plausibly allege reasonable reliance. Conclusory and general allegations that, for example, plaintiffs recall relying on Margolin’s statements between January and April 2017 about a promised “Treasure Hunt” at the Festival are insufficient; such allegations fail to plead with particularity a specific statement by Margolin, when it was made, who relied on it, and when. (Doc 100 at 7, 12-13.) An expenditure of money by a plaintiff to purchase tickets to the Festival before an employee of Fyre Media, Inc. made a particular statement or before the employee knew that the Festival would not take place as advertised would not give rise to a fraud claim against the employee. Plaintiffs have asserted a breach of contract claim against defendant Fyre Media, Inc. that is unaffected by the Court’s July 10 Order. (Doc 56
