SILIPENA et al v. AMERICAN PULVERIZER COMPANY et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 151 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez on 3/31/2021. (db, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
EDWARD SILIPENA, et al.,
Civil Action No. 16-711
Hon. Joseph H. Rodriguez
AMERICAN PULVERIZER CO., et al.,
This matter is before the Court on motion of Plaintiffs for
Reconsideration, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(i), of the Court’s March 19,
2019 Order denying Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a Second Amended
Complaint. Upon considering the arguments set forth by the motion, 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.
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)).
Plaintiffs have not presented the Court with an intervening change in
the controlling law or a clear error of law that will result in manifest
injustice. Plaintiffs argue that “new evidence” exists which relates to
Defendants’ “admissions” that the damages that flow from the second fire
have been part of this litigation since this matter’s inception. In support,
Plaintiffs point to Defendants’ request for an index related to Plaintiffs
production of more than 30,000 pages and Defendants’ proposed index
categories of those documents as evidence that Defendants acquiesced to
the inclusion of the second fire as part of the litigation and, therefore, the
amendment is warranted.
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ “new evidence” is not new. First,
Defendants claim that the timing of the index came Plaintiffs filed their
Motion for Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. Second, even if the
timing is not persuasive, the fact that Defendants sought information
regarding the second fire is neither an admission nor sufficient to grant
reconsideration. Finally, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ characterization
of this evidence as new is belied by the arguments advanced in support of
their motion to amend. Specifically, Plaintiffs are improperly recapitulating
arguments made in their underlying briefs. (See Stansfield Certification
attached to the omnibus reply brief, Docket No. 93, at ¶5-7).
The March 19, 2019 Order found Plaintiffs’ attempt to incorporate the
second fire into their basis for liability against Defendants was problematic
and troubling because the fires at Plaintiffs’ facility have always been
known to Plaintiffs. The Court found that the Defendants’ information
gathering on the second fire is not a triggering event for Plaintiffs’
realization of the existence of second fire and insufficient to grant leave to
amend. The Court rejected the amendment on that basis as well as the
prejudice it presents to the Defendants.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ have failed to present “something
new.” Khair, 893 F. Supp. at 337. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED this 31st day of March, 2021 that Plaintiffs’ motion
for reconsideration  of this Court’s March 19, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is hereby DENIED.
s/ Joseph H. Rodriguez
JOSEPH H. RODRIGUEZ
United States District Judge
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?