FINK v. KIRCHNER et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER, Denying 316 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 7/25/17. (js)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
JOHN W. FINK,
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
J. PHILIP KIRCHNER, and
JOHN W. FINK
6812 YELLOWSTONE BLVD.
FOREST HILLS, NY 11375
Appearing pro se
ADAM JEFFREY ADRIGNOLO
CHRISTOPHER J. CAREY
WILLIAM DOBBINS TULLY, JR.
GRAHAM CURTIN, PA
4 HEADQUARTERS PLAZA
PO BOX 1991
MORRISTOWN, NJ 07962
On behalf of Defendants
HILLMAN, District Judge
WHEREAS, on December 20, 2016, this Court granted summary
judgment in Defendants’ favor on Plaintiff’s claims against his
lawyer, Defendant J. Philip Kirchner, and Kirchner’s law firm,
Defendant Flaster/Greenberg P.C., arising out of Kirchner’s
representation of Plaintiff in 2006-08 on Plaintiff’s claims
against Advanced Logic Systems, Inc. (“ALSI”) concerning
Plaintiff’s loan to ALSI in 2001 (Docket No. 301, 302); and
WHEREAS, the Court found that Plaintiff’s claims for legal
malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, fraudulent
concealment, and spoliation failed, inter alia, because he could
not prove the essential element of causation for any of his
WHEREAS, Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration
of the Court’s decision pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) and
Federal Civil Procedure Rule 60; and
WHEREAS, a motion for reconsideration may be treated as a
motion to alter or amend judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e),
or as a motion for relief from judgment or order under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b), or it may be filed pursuant to Local Civil Rule
The purpose of a motion for reconsideration “is to
correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly
Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou–Ann, Inc.
v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999).
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
A motion for reconsideration 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 should be
dealt with through the normal appellate process, S.C. ex rel.
C.C. v. Deptford Twp Bd. of Educ., 248 F. Supp. 2d 368, 381
(D.N.J. 2003); U.S. v. Tuerk, 317 F. App’x 251, 253 (3d Cir.
2009) (quoting Mayberry v. Maroney, 529 F.2d 332, 336 (3d Cir.
1976)) (stating that “relief under Rule 60(b) is
‘extraordinary,’ and ‘may only be invoked upon a showing of
exceptional circumstances'”); and
WHEREAS, the Court has thoroughly considered Plaintiff’s
28-page moving brief, and his 15-page reply brief, as well as
Defendant’s opposition brief; and
WHEREAS, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s motion does not
meet any of the three bases for the Court to reconsider its
decision on its December 20, 2016 Opinion, or any other prior
Opinions Plaintiff has challenged and believes that his
challenge remains unresolved; and
WHEREAS, the Court further finds that the appellate process
is the proper context to raise his disagreements with the
Court’s decisions 1;
IT IS on this
ORDERED that the Clerk shall reopen the case and shall make
a new and separate docket entry reading “CIVIL CASE REOPENED”;
and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration 
be, and the same hereby is, DENIED; and it is finally
ORDERED that the Clerk shall re-close the file and make a
new and separate docket entry reading “CIVIL CASE TERMINATED.”
s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
At Camden, New Jersey
Indeed, prior to filing his motion for reconsideration,
Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals. (Docket No. 311.) That appeal has been stayed pending
this Court’s resolution of Plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration. (Docket No. 319.)
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?