HOLLAND v. SIMON PROPERTY GROUP, INC. et al
Filing
91
OPINION AND ORDER denying 84 Motion to Alter Judgment. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 4/18/12. (js)
[Docket No. 84]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
RICHARD G. HOLLAND,
Plaintiff,
Civil No. 09-914 RMB/AMD
v.
MACERICH, TIMOTHY KORNHUMEL,
DEPTFORD MALL SECURITY GUARD
IMPERATO, DEPTFORD MALL
SECURITY GUARD ROBERT
CHEROBSKI, IPC INTERNATIONAL,
INC., AND JANE DOES,
OPINION AND ORDER
Defendants.
Plaintiff Richard G. Holland (“Plaintiff”) has moved for
reconsideration of this Court’s Order granting summary judgment
for the Defendants and to open the judgment to amend his
pleadings.
For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s motion is
DENIED.
I.
Background
Defendants Macerich, Timothy Kornhumel, Janine Imperator,
Robert Cherobski, and IPC International, Inc. (“Defendants”)
previously moved for summary judgment dismissal of Plaintiffs’
claims of retaliation in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.
That motion was granted.
Holland v. Macerich, No. 09-914, 2011
WL 6934969 (D.N.J. Dec. 29, 2011).
In this Court’s Opinion granting the motion, the Court
found that Plaintiff had made claims of retaliation in his
summary judgment briefing that were not alluded to in
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, even liberally construing the
Amended Complaint.
Id. at *3.
Those claims, the Court held,
could not be considered on the motion for summary judgment
because plaintiffs are not permitted to amend their complaints
through their summary judgment opposition briefing.
Id.
Having
granted summary judgment on the properly presented claims, the
Court held that, if Plaintiff intended “to assert these new
claims, he would be required to file a motion under Rule 59(e).”
Id. at *4 (citing to South Jersey Gas Co. v. Mueller Co., Ltd.,
429 F. App’x 128, 130-31 (3d Cir. 2011)(holding that, when a
party requests post-judgment amendment of a pleading, Rule 59(e)
is the appropriate vehicle for relief).
submitted such a motion.
Plaintiff has now
Plaintiff did not, however, submit a
proposed amended complaint.
II.
Analysis
Plaintiff has moved for: (1) reconsideration of this
Court’s summary judgment Order; and (2) to alter or amend the
judgment under Rule 59(e).
turn.
The Court addresses each request in
A.
Plaintiff’s Motion For Reconsideration
In this District, motions for reconsideration are governed
by Local Rule 7.1(i), which allows a court to reconsider a
decision upon a showing that dispositive factual matters or
controlling decisions of law were overlooked by the court in
reaching its prior decision.
Flores v. Predco Servs. Corp., No.
10-1320, 2011 WL 3273573, at *1 (D.N.J. July 29, 2011).
The
purpose of the motion is to correct manifest errors of law or
fact or to present newly discovered evidence.
(quotation and citation omitted).
Id. at *2
Here, Plaintiff has presented
no facts or law overlooked by the court and no newly discovered
evidence.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of
the Court’s prior Order is DENIED.
B.
Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) Motion
A motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) must
be submitted with 28 days after entry of judgment.
of Civil Procedure 59(e).
Federal Rule
Plaintiff’s motion was made on
January 26, 2012, 28 days after this Court’s Order dismissing
the case on December 29, 2011, and was therefore timely.
When a
“timely motion to amend judgment is filed under Rule 59(e), the
Rule 15 [motion for leave to amend] and 59 [motion to amend
judgment] inquiries turn on the same factors.
These
considerations include undue delay, bad faith, prejudice or
futility.”
In re Adams Golf, Inc. Sec. Litig., 381 F.3d 267,
280 (3d Cir. 2004)(quotation and citation omitted).1
A district
court may also deny leave to amend where the movant fails to
provide a draft amended complaint.
Cureton v. Nat’l Collegiate
Athletic Ass’n, 252 F.3d 267, 273 (3d Cir. 2001).
Here, leave to amend the complaint is unwarranted on at
least three grounds.
First, Plaintiff’s delay in seeking leave
to amend was undue for a number of reasons:
(1) Plaintiff already had an opportunity to amend his
complaint and did so [Docket Nos. 21, 40]. Id.
(holding that while “delay alone is insufficient ground
to deny leave to amend”, “delay may become undue when a
movant has had previous opportunities to amend a
complaint”);
(2) Plaintiff sought leave here only after summary judgment
was already entered against him, when judicial
interests in economy and finality are heightened. Id.
(noting that “the interests in judicial economy and
finality of litigation may become particularly
compelling” when a plaintiff seeks leave to amend
following the entry of summary judgment);
(3) the claims Plaintiff intends to assert are based on
facts known to Plaintiff from the outset. Adams, 381
F.3d at 280 (“The concept of undue delay includes
consideration of whether new information came to light
or was available earlier to the moving party.”); and
(4) Plaintiff has advanced no reason for his delay in
seeking to amend. Cureton, 252 F.3d at 273 (noting
that “the question of undue delay requires that we
focus on the movant’s reasons for not amending
sooner.”).
1
The Third Circuit’s decision in Burtch v. Milberg Factors, Inc., 662
F.3d 212 (3d Cir. 2011) clarified that, while the general liberality of
Rule 15(a) is no longer applicable once judgment has been entered, the
District Court must still apply the Rule 15(a) factors and not the
traditional Rule 59(e) factors on a motion under Rule 59(e) to amend
the pleadings to assert new claims after judgment has been entered.
Burtch, 662 F.3d at 230-31.
Second, more fundamentally, Plaintiff failed to submit a
proposed amended complaint as required.
Third, Plaintiff’s new
claims would likely prejudice Defendants by incurring
“additional discovery, cost, and preparation to defend against
new facts or legal theories.”
Id.
III. Conclusion
For all these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: April 18, 2012
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?