UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JOSE RODRIGUEZ and SHERRI CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-02982-LGS MORRIS on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Hon. Lorna G. Schofield Plaintiffs, CLASS ACTION Vv. PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION TARGET CORPORATION and LANG AND MOTION FOR PHARMA NUTRITION INC. RECONSIDERATION Defendants. intiffs' motion for reconsideration is DENIED. “A party may move for reconsideration and obtain relief only whe identifies an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to corre error or prevent manifest injustice.” Cho v. Blackberry Ltd., 991 F.3d 155, 170 (2d Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). standard for granting such a motion is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked -- matters, in other words, that might sonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.” /d. (internal quotation marks omitted). intiffs have not pointed to any allegations or authority that was overlooked in deciding Defendants’ motion to Defendants’ motion already was denied in part because Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that Defendant eling claims may mislead a reasonable consumer about whether their products contain what Plaintiffs call "pure" or "natural" fish oil. In support of its surviving claims, Plaintiffs may argue that any statements on labels beyond the words "fish oil" contribute to misleading consumers in that way. But for clarity and to narrow the issues in dispute, Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that Defendants’ labels may mislead about how and where the fish in question are caught -- "wild" in "Alaska." The cases Plaintiffs cite are because the labels in those cases emphasized the presence of desirable ingredients that allegedly de up only a small part of the products, e.g. "real fruit" or “whole grain." Here, Plaintiffs have not alleged that products come in any part from fish that are caught other than in the manner described on the label. January 18, 2023 York, New York ( | ec LORNA G. SCHOFIEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiffs Jose Rodriguez and Sherri Morris hereby move for reconsideration, under Local Civil Rule 6.3 and Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, of this Court’s Opinion & Order granting in part and dismissing in part their Second Amended Complaint against Defendants Target Corporation and Lang Pharma Nutrition, Inc. Dkt. No. 55. This Motion is accompanied by a Memorandum setting forth the matters which Plaintiffs’ counsel believes the Court has overlooked. DATED: January 13, 2023 Respectfully submitted, Michael D. 2 KUZYK LAW, LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 1100 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (213) 401-4100 Email: mdb@kuzykclassactions.com JUST FOOD LAW PLLC Maia Kats 5335 Wisconsin Ave, NW, Suite 440 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 243-7910 Email: maiakats@justfoodlaw.com Counsel for Plaintiffs -2-