AMENDED ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff Aaron Katzel (“Plaintiff”) brought this suit against his former employer Defendant American International Group (“Defendant” or “AIG”), alleging that he was terminated in retaliation for blowing the whistle on violations of federal fraud and securities laws. He claimed that his termination violated the whistleblower protections of Section 806 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”) and the Dodd-Frank Act (“DFA”), 18 U.S.C. §1514A. He also asserted state-law claims for breach of contract and tortious interference with contract based on his failure to receive AIG stock and other equity awards pursuant to a Long-Term Incentive Plan (LTIP), managed by a third-party administrator, causing him damages in excess of $1.2 million dollars. On September 23, 2022, I issued an opinion and order granting summary judgment to Defendant on the SOX and DFA claims. See ECF No. 91. After granting Defendant’s motion as to those claims, I declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims for breach of contract and tortious interference with contract. See id. at 17-18. The Clerk entered Judgment in favor of Defendant on September 30, 2022. See ECF No. 92. Now, Defendant seeks to amend that judgment to grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s state law claims. For the reasons identified below, Defendant’s motion is granted. BACKGROUND The relevant facts appear in the earlier opinion and order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. See ECF No. 91. DISCUSSION I. Motion to Amend the Judgment Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits amendment of a final judgment provided that a motion requesting such relief is filed within 28 days of the entry of judgment and that the moving party shows that the Court overlooked controlling decisions or data that “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). Rule 60 provides that a “court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment” for “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect” or “any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. For the reasons identified below, I exercise my discretion to amend the judgment to grant summary judgment to Defendant on Plaintiff’s state law claims. First, I previously overlooked the independent basis for jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims based on diversity. While Plaintiff did not rely on diversity jurisdiction to bring his state law claims, it is clear that diversity jurisdiction exists. Katzel is a California resident, and AIG is a citizen of Delaware, where it is incorporated, and New York, where it is headquartered. See First Amended Complaint,
