KUZIAN v. ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC.

Filing 78

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: ORDERED that defendant's motion for reconsideration 42 is GRANTED to the extent that the Court will hear re-argument on the issues raised in defendant's motion; and it is further ORDERED that the parties shall appear before this Court on 2/3/2014 at 2:00pm in Courtroom 3A. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 12/27/2013. (tf, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MARIUSZ KUZIAN, JAMES G.
BROWN, DEBRA A. THOMAS-BROWN,
and IRMA LEDERER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS,
INC.,
Defendant.

APPEARANCES:
BRUCE HELLER NAGEL
DIANE E. SAMMONS
NAGEL RICE, LLP
103 EISENHOWER PARKWAY
SUITE 201
ROSELAND, NJ 07068
JOHN N. POULOS
JOSEPH LOPICCOLO
POULOS LOPICCOLO PC
1305 SOUTH ROLLER ROAD
OCEAN, NJ 07712
On behalf of plaintiffs
JEFFREY M. GARROD
ORLOFF, LOWENBACH, STIFELMAN
& SIEGEL, P.A.
101 EISENHOWER PARKWAY
ROSELAND, NJ 07068
C. BRANDON WISOFF
THOMAS B. MAYHEW
FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP
235 MONTGOMERY STREET - 17TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104
On behalf of defendant

Civil No. 12-3341 (NLH/AMD)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION & ORDER

HILLMAN, District Judge
This matter having come before the Court on the motion of
defendant Electrolux Home Products, Inc. (“Electrolux”) for
reconsideration, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(i)1, of the
Court’s denial of its motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims
regarding defective ice makers in their Electrolux refrigerators;
and
Defendant arguing that the Court erred when it did not find
that the New Jersey plaintiffs’ fraud and implied warranty claims
were subsumed by the New Jersey Products Liability Act, N.J.S.A.
2A:58C-1, et seq., because those claims allege a defective
product that has caused damage to other property beyond the
refrigerator itself - namely, to the walls, floors, and food
inside - and instead found those damages to be consequential,
economic losses not subsumed by the NJPLA; and
Defendant also arguing that if the Court declines to
reconsider its decision, the Court should permit defendant to
pursue an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b);
and

1

Rule 7.1(i) provides, in relevant part, “A motion for
reconsideration shall be served and filed within 14 business days
after the entry of the order or judgment on the original motion
by the Judge or Magistrate Judge. A brief setting forth
concisely the matter or controlling decisions which the party
believes the Judge or Magistrate Judge has overlooked shall be
filed with the Notice of Motion.”
2

The Court recognizing that the purpose of a motion for
reconsideration “is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or
to present newly discovered evidence,” Max’s Seafood Café ex rel.
Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999), and
that a judgment may be altered or amended only if the party
seeking reconsideration shows: (1) an intervening change in the
controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was
not available when the court granted the motion for summary
judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact
or to prevent manifest injustice, id.; and
The Court further recognizing that the motion may not be
used to re-litigate old matters or argue new matters that could
have been raised before the original decision was reached, P.
Schoenfeld Asset Mgmt., L.L.C. v. Cendant Corp., 161 F. Supp. 2d
349, 352 (D.N.J. 2001), and mere disagreement with the Court will
not suffice to show that the Court overlooked relevant facts or
controlling law, United States v. Compaction Sys. Corp., 88 F.
Supp. 2d 339, 345 (D.N.J. 1999); and
The Court finding after review of the submissions that it
should re-examine the issue of whether plaintiffs’ claims
concerning the damages caused by the allegedly faulty ice makers
to property other than the product itself, e.g., food, floors and
walls are consequential, economic losses, but rather sound in
tort and are subsumed by the NJPLA;

3

Accordingly,
IT IS on this

27th

day of December

, 2013

ORDERED that defendant’s motion for reconsideration [42] is
GRANTED to the extent that the Court will hear re-argument on the
issues raised in defendant’s motion2; and it is further
ORDERED that the parties shall appear before this Court on
Monday, February 3, 2014 at 2:00pm in Courtroom 3A or on such
other date convenient to the Court and parties.

s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

At Camden, New Jersey

2

Because the Court grants defendant’s motion for
reconsideration, defendant’s request for leave to file an
interlocutory appeal is denied.
4