HUERTAS v. FOULKE MANAGMENT, CORP. et al
Filing
137
OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 11/24/2020. (tf, )
Case 1:17-cv-01891-RMB-AMD Document 137 Filed 11/24/20 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 2298
[Dkt. Nos. 132]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
:
HECTOR L. HUERTAS,
:
:
Plaintiff.
:
:
v.
:
:
FOULKE MANAGEMENT CORP. et al,:
:
Defendants.
:
:
Civil No. 17-1891 (RMB/AMD)
OPINION
BUMB, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
This matter comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff
Hector Huertas’s Motion for Reconsideration [Docket No. 132] of
the Court’s April 15, 2020 Order granting Defendant Capital One
N.A.’s Motion for Summary Judgment with prejudice.
131].
[Docket No.
Plaintiff argues that, when the Court issued its order,
he still had time to file a motion to vacate, modify, or correct
a relevant arbitration award.
Capital One contends, however,
that the portion of the arbitrator’s decision that Plaintiff
challenges is irrelevant to the Court’s order granting summary
judgment.
be DENIED.
For the reasons stated herein, Huertas’s motion will
Case 1:17-cv-01891-RMB-AMD Document 137 Filed 11/24/20 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 2299
I.
BACKGROUND
The Court previously detailed the factual background of
this dispute in its Opinion concerning Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment [Docket No. 130].
It will now address only the
facts relevant to Huertas’s current motion.
This case was originally filed in March 2017, and arises
from Plaintiff’s purchase of a used car in 2016, as well as his
subsequent non-payments.
[Docket No. 1].
In December 2017, the
Court ordered Plaintiff and Defendant Foulke Management, Corp.
to arbitration, pursuant to their signed arbitration agreement.
[Docket No. 37].
The Court also stayed Plaintiff’s claims
against Defendant Capital One, pending the arbitrator’s decision
concerning arbitrability. [Id.].
Plaintiff’s claims against
Capital One then returned to the Court’s active docket, and the
proceedings continued.
Plaintiff alleged two counts against Capital One:
violations of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) and fraud.
[Docket No. 54, at 13, 15].
More specifically, Plaintiff argued
that, when purchasing a car from the Foulke Dealership, he was
charged $469.45 worth of processing fees in violation of TILA,
and that Capital One overcharged him in interest by $1.93.
[See
Docket No. 130, at 3-7].
On April 15, 2020, the Court granted Capital One’s Motion
for Summary Judgment with prejudice.
2
[Docket Nos. 130 & 131].
Case 1:17-cv-01891-RMB-AMD Document 137 Filed 11/24/20 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 2300
The Court found that the dealership charged the identified fees
to all customers, regardless of whether the customer buys with
credit or cash, and therefore they were not fees incident to the
extension of credit under TILA.
[Id. at 3-5].
Similarly, the
Court found that Plaintiff’s interest calculations contained
mathematical errors, and that Capital One had not overcharged
him.
[Id. at 5-7].
Finally, the Court noted that Plaintiff’s
allegation of Capital One engaging in a “bait-and-switch scheme”
was both speculative and contradicted his own contentions.
[Id.
at 6].
Huertas now requests that the Court reconsider its April 15
order because the arbitrator allegedly erred in numerous
respects, and Plaintiff still had time to challenge that
arbitration award when the Court issued its order.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
In the District of New Jersey, motions for reconsideration
are governed by Local Civil Rule 7.1(i), which provides:
Unless otherwise provided by statute or rule (such as
Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, 52 and 59), a motion for
reconsideration shall be served and filed within 14 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.
The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to present newly
discovered evidence or to correct manifest errors of law or
3
Case 1:17-cv-01891-RMB-AMD Document 137 Filed 11/24/20 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 2301
fact.
Howard Hess Dental Laboratories Inc. v. Dentsply Intern.,
Inc., 602 F.3d 237, 251 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Max’s Seafood
Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)) (quoting
Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985)).
Accordingly, the party seeking reconsideration must show at
least one of the following grounds: “(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.
III. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff argues that the Court erred in granting
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on April 15, 2020,
because he was able to file a motion to vacate, modify, or
correct the arbitration award until May 4, 2020.
argument is unavailing.
But this
Whether Plaintiff had time to challenge
the arbitration award is irrelevant to his claims against
Capital One.
Indeed, Plaintiff fails to allege any change in
controlling law, identify any new evidence, or contend that the
Court committed clear error.
Plaintiff’s claims against Capital One are for violations
of TILA and for fraud. The Court did not rely on the
arbitrator’s decision in granting Capital One’s Motion for
Summary Judgment for these claims. Moreover, Plaintiff does not
4
Case 1:17-cv-01891-RMB-AMD Document 137 Filed 11/24/20 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 2302
identify how a reversal of the arbitrator’s decision would
affect either of his claims against Capital One entitling him to
relief.
Instead, nearly Plaintiff’s entire motion alleges
mistakes in the process, rather than their effect on Capital
One’s Motion for Summary Judgment. “Relief by way of a motion
for reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy that is to be
granted very sparingly,” White v. City of Trenton, 848 F. Supp.
2d 497, 500 (D.N.J. 2012), and Plaintiff has not shown that such
relief is appropriate here.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion will be
denied.
An appropriate Order shall issue on this date.
Dated: November 24, 2020
s/Renée Marie Bumb_________
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge
5
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?