ADRIANI v. CITY OF HOBOKEN et al
Filing
14
OPINION. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 11/5/12. (gh, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
ANGELO ANDRIANI,
Civil No. 11-6707
Plaintiff,
v.
OPINION
HON. WILLIAM J. MARTINI
CITY OF HOBOKEN, THE HOBOKEN
POLICE DEPARTMENT, MAYOR DAWN
ZIMMER, POLICE CHIEF ANTHONY
FALCO, POLICE CAPTAIN EDIMIRO
GARCIA
Defendants.
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.:
This matter comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Angelo Andriani’s motion
for reconsideration of the Court’s September 24, 2012 Opinion and Order (ECF Nos. 9
and 10) pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(i). For the reasons stated below, Andriani’s
motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
For purposes of Andriani’s reconsideration motion, it is sufficient to note the
following:1 On November 14, 2011, Andriani, a former lieutenant with the Hoboken
1
For a more complete factual background, please refer to the Court’s September 24,
2012 Opinion (ECF No. 9).
Police Department, commenced this action against various Defendants related to the
Hoboken Police Department. In his Complaint, Andriani asserted that from December
2005 until August 2010, Defendants treated Plaintiff differently from similarly situated
officers on the basis of his race, in violation of: (1) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e); (2) the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. §
10:5-1; (3) 42 U.S.C. § 1981; and (4) 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In that pleading, Andriani listed
his mailing address as 1532 U.S. Highway 41 Bypass South #206, Venice, Florida 34293
(the “Florida Mailing Address”).
On the same day Andriani filed the 2011 Complaint, he completed and signed a
Consent & Registration Form to Receive Documents Electronically at the e-mail address
of AA11653@aol.com (“e-Notice Form”). (ECF No. 2.) Pursuant to the e-Notice Form,
and consistent with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5(b) and 77(d) and Local Civil Rule
5.2, Andriani elected to receive service of documents through the Court’s electronic filing
system and waived his right to receive notice by first class mail. In signing the e-Notice
form, and consistent with Local Civil Rule 10.1, Andriani also agreed to “promptly notify
the Court if there is a change in my personal data, such as name, address, and/or e-mail
address.” (ECF No. 2.) To date, Andriani has never filed anything with the Court which
indicates that any of his personal data has changed.
In response to Andriani’s Complaint, on March 1, 2012, Defendants moved for
summary judgment, asserting, among other things, that Andriani was barred from
2
litigating the claims in his 2011 Complaint because he could have raised them in a 2007
lawsuit in which a group of Hispanic Hoboken Police Officers sued Andriani based on his
alleged inappropriate and discriminatory behavior as their supervisor.2 In support of that
argument, Defendants presented the Court with a copy of a Settlement Agreement and
Release dated April 21, 2011, which Andriani signed shortly before the 2007 lawsuit was
dismissed with prejudice, as settled.
The record indicates that Defendants’ summary judgment papers, including the
April 21 Settlement Agreement and Release, were e-mailed to AA11653@aol.com on
March 1, 2012 at 4:50 p.m. In addition, and although not required to, Defendants sent a
paper copy of their motion papers to Andriani at his Florida Mailing Address. (See ECF
No. 11.) However, Andriani never filed any responsive papers to Defendants’ motion.
On September 24, 2012, the Court granted Defendants’ unopposed motion for
summary judgment after determining that Andriani’s 2011 Complaint was barred by the
doctrine of federal claim preclusion. The Court wishes to make clear that Andriani never
filed opposition or any other document with the Court between March 1, 2012 and the
Court’s September 24, 2012 summary judgment ruling. However, on October 9, 2012,
Andriani filed a letter with the Court requesting that the Court reconsider its dismissal of
the 2011 Complaint, which the Court construes as his motion for reconsideration.
2
The 2007 lawsuit was filed in the District of New Jersey and presided over by
the Honorable Stanley R. Chesler. See Civ. No. 07-5113 (SRC).
3
II.
DISCUSSION
a.
Standard of Review
A motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) may be granted only if:
(1) there has been an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) evidence not available
when the Court issued the subject order has become available; or (3) it is necessary to
correct a clear error of law or fact to prevent manifest injustice. Max’s Seafood Café by
Lou–Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir.1999) (citing North River Ins. Co.
v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir.1995)). Relief by way of a
motion for reconsideration is considered an “extraordinary remedy,” to be granted only
sparingly. NL Indus. Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 935 F.Supp. 513, 516 (D.N.J.
1999).
b. Application
Andriani presents two arguments in support of reconsideration request. However,
neither compels reconsideration.
First, Andriani asserts that he “never received any motion papers.” (Andriani
Reconsideration Letter, ECF No. 12.) To begin with, Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment was e-mailed to the account Andriani provided to the Court on the e-Service
Form, and thus Andriani was properly notified of the pending motion. In addition, and
although not required to, Defendants sent a paper copy of their summary judgment papers
to Andriani’s Florida Mailing Address. Under these circumstances, the Court is hard-
4
pressed to believe Andriani was unaware that a motion for summary judgment had been
filed in his 2011 lawsuit. But even if Andriani truly was unaware of Defendants’
summary judgment motion, his ignorance does not provide a basis for reconsideration.
See, e.g., Antoine v. Rucker, No. 03-3738, 2007 WL 1749961 (D.N.J. June 14, 2007) (“It
is counsel’s responsibility to monitor the activity occurring in his actions before the court,
particularly where, as here, counsel is aware of changes in his e-mail system that may
interfere with the prompt delivery of such notices”) and Hunt-Ruble v. Lord, Worrell &
Richter, Inc, Civil No. 10-4520, 2012 WL 2340418 at *4 (D.N.J. June 19, 2012) (litigant
who proceeds pro se is directly responsible for his conduct in the litigation) (citing cases).
Second, Andriani argues for reconsideration based on his claim that Defendants
filed an incorrect copy of the Settlement and Release which the Court referenced in its
September 24, 2012 Opinion. In support of that assertion, Andriani attached “a copy of
the final executed version of that Agreement” with his reconsideration papers. However,
after reviewing both documents, Andriani’s assertion that the Court relied on the
language from a different settlement agreement is patently incorrect. That is because,
with the exception of the amount of settlement, the “Settlement Agreement and Release”
Andriani supplied with his reconsideration papers is identical to the Release which
Defendants submitted with their summary judgment papers.
In short, because Andriani has failed to show (1) an intervening change in the
controlling law; (2) newly discovered evidence, or (3) the need to correct a clear error of
5
law or fact to prevent manifest injustice, his motion for reconsideration will be denied.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above Plaintiff Angelo Andriani’s motion for
reconsideration will be DENIED. An appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion.
s/William J. Martini
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.
Date: November 5, 2012
6
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?