KITCHEN v. GRONDOLSKY et al
Filing
56
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying Defts' 53 Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's decision denying in part their Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez on 2/10/2014. (dmr)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
JAMES MICHAEL KITCHEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
Hon. Joseph H. Rodriguez
Civil Action No. 11-5834
MEMORANDUM OPINION
&ORDER
JEFF GRONDOLSKY, et al.,
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on a motion of the Defendants pursuant to Local
Civil Rule 7(1) for reconsideration of the Court's December 4, 2013 Order denying in
part Defendants' motion to dismiss the constitutional claims against Jeff Grondolsky
and Donna Zickefoose. Upon considering the motion and Plaintiffs 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 Unio
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 Cor ,
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 cou
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, 91
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)).
Defendants have 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.
t£
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED this
/
0
day of February, 2014 that Defendants' motion for
reconsideration [53] of this Court's decision enying in part their Motion to Dismiss is
hereby DENIED.
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?