ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Re: Dkt. No. 39
MARIA-ELENA JAMES, Magistrate Judge.
On July 7, 2017, the Court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss without leave to amend. See Order, Dkt. No. 38. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9, Plaintiff requests leave to file a motion for reconsideration of that Order. See Mot., Dkt. No. 39.
In his Motion, Plaintiff argues it is "apparent that the Court did not consider the [Extension of Admiralty Act (`EAA')]." Mot. at 3. The Court did not specifically discuss the EAA, which was enacted in 1948. Instead, the Court analyzed authorities that interpreted and applied the EAA, including cases Plaintiff cited in his Opposition, such as Lu Junhong v. Boeing Co., 792 F.3d 805, 816 (7th Cir. 2015) and Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527, 532-34 (1995). See Order at 6-7 (specifically noting the Grubart Court relied on the Extension of Admiralty Act to find admiralty jurisdiction existed). The Court found Plaintiff did not allege facts sufficient to show admiralty jurisdiction applied under the standards set forth in those cases, standards explicitly based on the EAA. See id. Plaintiff's request for leave thus is DENIED.