SECRETARY OF LABOR v. DOYLE et al

Filing 306

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 302 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez on 1/8/2015. (drw)n.m.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
_____________________________

THOMAS E. PEREZ, Secretary of Labor,

v.

Hon. Joseph H. Rodriguez
Civil Action No. 05-2264

:

Plaintiff,

:
:

United States Department of Labor,

MEMORANDUM OPINION
& ORDER

JAMES DOYLE, et al.,

:

Defendants.
________________________________

:

This matter is before the Court on a motion of the Defendant Cynthia Holloway
pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(i) for reconsideration of the Court’s December 1, 2014
Opinion issued in favor of Plaintiff. Upon considering the motion and Plaintiff’s
opposition thereto, the Court will deny reconsideration.
“The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law
or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d
906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985).

It must be stressed, however, that reconsideration is “an

extraordinary remedy” and is granted “sparingly.”

NL Indus., Inc. v. Commercial

Union Ins. Co., 935 F. Supp. 513, 516 (D.N.J. 1996).
To succeed on a motion for reconsideration, the moving party must show “more
than a disagreement” with the decision it would like reconsidered.

Anders v. FPA

Corp., 164 F.R.D. 383, 387 (D.N.J. 1995). Instead, there must be some “dispositive
factual matters or controlling decisions of law” that were presented to the Court, but not
considered.

Interfaith Cmty. Org. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 215 F. Supp. 2d 482, 507

(D.N.J. 2002); United States v. Compaction Sys. Corp., 88 F. Supp. 2d 339, 345 (D.N.J.
1999).

Thus, a “mere recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the

court before rendering the original decision” does not warrant a grant of
reconsideration. Carteret Sav. Bank, F.A. v. Shushan, 721 F. Supp. 705, 706 (D.N.J.

1989), modified, 919 F.2d 225 (3d Cir. 1990); accord In re Gabapentin Patent Litigation,
432 F. Supp. 2d 461, 463 (D.N.J. 2006); S.C. v. Deptford Twp. Bd. of Educ., 248 F.
Supp. 2d 368, 381 (D.N.J. 2003).
A motion for reconsideration will likewise fail if the moving party merely raises
arguments or presents evidence that could have been raised or presented before the
original decision was reached. NL Indus, 935 F. Supp. at 516.

Thus, the moving party

must actually present “something new or something overlooked by the court in
rendering the earlier decision.” Khair v. Campbell Soup Co., 893 F. Supp. 316, 337
(D.N.J. 1995) (citing Harsco Corp., 779 F.2d at 909). The word “overlooked” is the
operative term and has been consistently interpreted as referring only to facts and legal
arguments that might reasonably have resulted in a different conclusion had they been
considered.

Summerfield v. Equifax, 264 F.R.D. 133, 145 (D.N.J. 2009) (citing United

States v. DeLaurentis, 83 F. Supp. 2d 455, 474 n.2 (D.N.J. 2000)).
Defendant Holloway has not presented the Court with an intervening change in
the controlling law, evidence not previously available, or a clear error of law that will
result in manifest injustice.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED this 8th day of January, 2015 that Defendant Holloway’s motion
for reconsideration [302] of this Court’s December 1, 2014 decision is hereby DENIED.
/s/ Joseph H. Rodriguez
JOSEPH H. RODRIGUEZ
U.S.D.J.