BAPU CORP. et al v. CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL,INC.

Filing 81

ORDER denying 78 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 8/17/10. (gh, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

B A P U CORP., HARSHAD S. PATEL, Plaintiffs, v. C H O I C E HOTELS INTERNATIONAL, I N C ., Defendant.

C iv il No. 07-5938 (WJM)

ORDER

T H I S MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' amended motion for re c o n s id e ra tio n of this Court's June 1, 2010 order granting Defendant's motion for a tto rn e y's fees. Under Local Civil Rule 7.1(i), a motion for reconsideration may be g ra n te d only if: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law has occurred; (2) e v id e n c e not previously available has become available; or (3) it is necessary to correct a c le a r error of law or prevent manifest injustice. Database Am., Inc. v. Bellsouth Adver. & P u b . Corp., 825 F. Supp. 1216, 1220 (D.N.J. 1993). While such a motion "may not be u s e d to relitigate old matters, nor to raise arguments or present evidence that could have b e e n raised prior to the entry of judgment," P. Schoenfeld Asset Management LLC v. C e n d a n t Corp., 161 F. Supp. 2d 349, 352 (D.N.J. 2001), that is precisely what Plaintiffs h a v e done here. Plaintiffs have failed to point the Court to an intervening change in the controlling

law, the availability of new evidence that was not previously available, or the need to c o rre c t a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice. Instead, Plaintiffs ra ise for the first time an argument based on the Maryland merger and bar doctrine. Rule 7 .1 (i), however, "does not contemplate a Court looking to matters which were not o rig in a lly presented." Florham Park Chevron, Inc. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 680 F. Supp. 1 5 9 , 162 (D.N.J. 1988); see also Feit v. Great-West Life and Annuity Ins. Co., 460 F. S u p p . 2d 632, 644 (D.N.J. 2006) (stating that litigant's attempt to raise new arguments " f a lls afoul of the admonition to confine the grounds for reconsideration to matters p re v io u s ly presented to, but overlooked by, the court on the original motion."). Thus, P la in tif f s ' arguments regarding the Maryland merger and bar doctrine are not properly ra ise d for the first time on a motion for reconsideration. P la in tif f s also raise for the first time a statute of limitations defense. While P la in tif f s contend that this defense is "law of the case" and "clearly on the table th ro u g h o u t these proceedings," Plaintiffs never raised this defense in opposition to the in s ta n t motion for attorney's fees. (Pls.' Reply Mem. 5.) Whether Plaintiff asserted this d e f e n s e with regard to other motions in this case is irrelevant. Plaintiff does not argue th a t he raised the defense with regard to the instant motion for fees. Thus, for the reasons d is c u s se d above, this court cannot consider Plaintiffs' statute of limitations argument b e c a u s e it was raised for the first time in this motion for reconsideration. In addition, Plaintiffs argue that this Court overlooked Maryland law governing the c o n s id e ra tio n of attorney's fees applications but do not identify how Maryland law would

change the outcome of this motion. Instead, Plaintiffs merely recapitulate their argument th a t Defendant's requested fees are unreasonable. Disagreement is not a proper basis for re c o n s id e ra tio n . See Hackensack Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Delaware Otsego Corp., Civ. No. 0 5 -4 8 0 6 , 2007 WL 1749963, at *3 (D.N.J. June 15, 2007) (denying reconsideration where " [ t]h e substance of Plaintiffs' argument ... is that the Court came to the wrong conclusion, n o t that the Court overlooked controlling standards and law."). As such, Plaintiffs' m o tio n for reconsideration therefore fails to meet the high threshold set forth in Local C iv il Rule 7.1(i). For the foregoing reasons, and for good cause appearing; I T IS on this 17th day of August 2010, hereby O R D E R E D that Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

/s/ William J. Martini WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.