SAMPSON et al v. GLOCK GES. M.B.H. et al
Filing
83
OPINION AND ORDER denying 70 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 79 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge Esther Salas on 12/16/14. (sr, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
__________________
BRIAN SAMPSON and MARIA
SAMPSON, his wife,
:
:
:
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
v.
:
:
GLOCK, INC., et al.,
:
:
:
Defendants.
:
___________________________________ :
Civil Action No. 11-1701 (ES)
OPINION & ORDER
SALAS, DISTRICT JUDGE
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Brian Sampson’s motion for reconsideration, (D.E.
No. 70), and Defendant Glock, Inc.’s motion for sanctions, (D.E. No. 79). For the reasons set forth
below, the Court denies both Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and Defendant’s motion for
sanctions.
I.
Factual Background and Procedural History
In its March 24, 2014 Opinion, the Court laid out the facts and procedural history giving
rise to this matter. See Sampson v. Glock, No. 11-1701, 2014 WL 1225581 (D.N.J. Mar. 24, 2014).
In that opinion, the Court granted Defendant’s unopposed motion for summary judgment. See id.
at *5. The Court’s Order granting summary judgment was entered on the docket on March 25,
2014. (D.E. No. 68).
On April 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for reconsideration of the Court’s
March 24, 2014 decision. (D.E. No. 70). On May 5, 2014, Defendant opposed Plaintiff’s motion
1
for reconsideration. (D.E. No. 77). Subsequently, on June 4, 2014, Defendant filed a motion for
sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. (D.E. No. 79).
II.
Discussion
Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) governs motions for reconsideration in this District. A motion for
reconsideration must “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.” L. Civ. R. 7.1(i). Furthermore, a motion
for reconsideration must set forth “the matter or controlling decisions which the party believes the
Judge or Magistrate Judge has overlooked.” Id.
It is well-settled that “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.”
Fletcher v. St. Joseph Reg’l Med. Ctr., No. 10-1499, 2013 WL 3146879, at *3 (D.N.J. June 19,
2013); see also Warren v. Fisher, No. 10-5343, 2013 WL 6805668, at *3 (D.N.J. Dec. 20, 2013)
(“Reconsideration is not . . . an opportunity to present new legal arguments that were available but
not advanced when the underlying motion was decided.”). Indeed, “[a] motion for reconsideration
is ‘an extraordinary remedy to be granted very sparingly.’” Watkins v. DineEquity, Inc., No. 117182, 2013 WL 396012, at *2 (D.N.J. Jan. 31, 2013) (quoting In re Lord Abbett Mut. Funds Fee
Litig., 417 F. Supp. 2d 624, 627 (D.N.J. 2005)).
In this case, there was nothing that the Court “overlooked” in granting summary judgment,
since Plaintiff failed to oppose Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.1 See L. Civ. R. 7.1(i).
1
On August 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed a request for an extension of time to file his opposition to
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (D.E. No. 61). The Court granted Plaintiff’s
request on August 21, 2013. (D.E. No. 63). Despite receiving this extension of time, Plaintiff
allowed the deadline to elapse and did not file an opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment. Subsequently, on January 9, 2014, the Court sua sponte held a telephone conference
during which Plaintiff’s counsel represented that he would submit an opposition. (D.E. No. 66).
However, Plaintiff never filed an opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
2
All of Plaintiff’s arguments were raised for the first time on this motion for reconsideration, and
Plaintiff has supplied no reason for failing to oppose Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s reconsideration motion suffers from a fatal flaw that warrants denial of his
motion. See Kandil v. Yurkovic, No. 06-4701, 2013 WL 6448074, at *2 (D.N.J. Dec. 9, 2013)
(“[T]here was nothing for this Court to overlook, as Plaintiff never submitted an opposition to
defendants’ motions for summary judgment. This alone is a fetal [sic] flaw in Plaintiff’s Motion
for Reconsideration.”); Bapu Corp. v. Choice Hotels Int’l, Inc., No. 07-5938, 2010 WL 3259799,
at *1 (D.N.J. Aug. 17, 2010) (“Rule 7.1(i) . . . does not contemplate a Court looking to matters
which were not originally presented. Thus, Plaintiffs’ arguments . . . are not properly raised for
the first time on a motion for reconsideration.” (internal citations and quotation marks omitted));
Joyce v. Sea Isle City, No. 04-5345, 2008 WL 2875456, at *2 (D.N.J. July 23, 2008) (denying
motion for reconsideration and noting that, while the party’s argument “may have merit,” a court
“cannot entertain it for the first time on a motion for reconsideration”).
Additionally, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is time-barred because it was filed after
the fourteen-day deadline elapsed. See L. Civ. R. 7.1(i). This alone is grounds to deny Plaintiff’s
motion for reconsideration. See Oriakhi v. Bureau of Prisons, No. 07-264, 2009 WL 1874199, at
*3 (D.N.J. June 29, 2009) (“An untimely filed motion for reconsideration may be denied for that
reason alone.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
As to Defendant’s motion for sanctions, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to
impose sanctions in this case. See Grider v. Keystone Health Plan Cent., Inc., 580 F.3d 119, 146
n.28 (3d Cir. 2009) (“[T]he imposition of sanctions for a Rule 11 violation is discretionary rather
than mandatory.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
3
Accordingly, IT IS on this 16th day of December 2014,
ORDERED that, Plaintiff Brian Sampson’s motion for reconsideration, (D.E. No. 70), is
DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that, Defendant Glock, Inc.’s motion for sanctions, (D.E. No. 79), is DENIED.
/s/ Esther Salas
Esther Salas, U.S.D.J.
4
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?