STEPHANATOS v. WAYNE TOWNSHIP et al

Filing 127

OPINION and ORDER denying Plaintiff's 121 Motion for Reconsideration of Judge Vasquez's 120 Opinion and Order. This action shall remain CLOSED. N/M. Signed by Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 4/24/2024. (wh)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
_________________________________________
BASILIS N. STEPHANATOS,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
Civil Action No.: 12-1793
:
v.
:
:
OPINION & ORDER
WAYNE TOWNSHIP, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
_________________________________________ :
CECCHI, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court by way of pro se Plaintiff Basilis N. Stephanatos’s
(“Plaintiff”) motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 121) of an August 30, 2023, Opinion and Order
(ECF No. 120) entered by the Honorable John M. Vasquez. 1 Defendant American Tax Funding,
LLC (“Defendant ATF”) filed opposition to Plaintiff’s motion on September 19, 2023 (ECF No.
122), and Defendants Ronald Lucas, Victor D’Agostino, and Passaic County (together, the
“County Defendants”) filed opposition on December 8, 2023 (ECF No. 126). The Court decides
this motion without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b). For the
reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
WHEREAS this action arises out of Plaintiff’s constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 and other related provisions challenging various local taxation practices and the foreclosure
of his home.2 See generally ECF No. 1; ECF No. 111 at 1. At the center of Plaintiff’s current
claim is the assertion that Defendant ATF’s tax sale foreclosure constitutes an unlawful taking.
1
2

This case was reassigned to the undersigned on October 20, 2023. ECF No. 123.

A more detailed recitation of the underlying facts and procedural history of this case can be found in the
Honorable Faith S. Hochberg’s April 15, 2013, decision dismissing Plaintiff’s action. See ECF No. 61 at
1-5.

ECF No. 115 at 3. Most of Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed on res judicata grounds, having
already been litigated in New Jersey state court, while the remaining claims were dismissed on the
merits in Judge Hochberg’s April 15, 2013, decision. ECF No. 61. Thus, this action has been
closed since April 2013. ECF No. 107 at 1 n.1. Since that time, Plaintiff has made various
unsuccessful efforts to appeal or reopen his case and relitigate claims already adjudicated. See,
e.g., ECF Nos. 85, 88, 111, 120; and
WHEREAS in his last such attempt, Plaintiff argued that the Supreme Court’s recent
decision in Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023), warranted reopening of his case. ECF
No. 120 at 3. In Tyler, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff had standing to bring a Takings
Clause claim under the Fifth Amendment where it was alleged that, after seizing and selling the
plaintiff’s home, the county retained funds exceeding the plaintiff’s tax debt. 598 U.S. at 636.
Plaintiff argued that the Court, in its equitable power, should retroactively apply Tyler’s holding
to Plaintiff’s claims. ECF No. 113 at 3. Judge Vasquez denied Plaintiff’s motion on grounds that
(i) Tyler was not relevant to any claims previously asserted by Plaintiff; (ii) Plaintiff sought to
raise a new Takings Clause claim but did not allege any excess proceeds from the sale of his
property; and (iii) in any event, changes in federal law are only retroactively applied to cases that
are still open for review. ECF No. 120 at 2-3; and
WHEREAS Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of Judge Vasquez’s decision “to allow the
Plaintiff to file a Section 1983 Takings Claim to recover the excess amount from the sale of his
property.” ECF No. 121 at 1. Plaintiff points to the Court’s equitable powers as a basis for the
retroactive application of Tyler to his case.3 Id. at 5-6. In opposition, Defendant ATF argues that
Plaintiff’s motion must be denied because “it simply is a re-argument of the previously denied

3

While Plaintiff points to the continuing-violations and equitable tolling doctrines as bases for relief, ECF
No. 121 at 9-10, 12-13, the Court finds that these arguments are without merit.

2

[m]otion” before Judge Vasquez. ECF No. 122 at 1. The County Defendants likewise argue that
“Plaintiff is seeking another bite at the apple” and fails to cite controlling law that Judge Vasquez
has overlooked. ECF No. 126 at 1; and
WHEREAS a party may move for reconsideration of a previous order if there are
“matter[s] or controlling decisions which the party believes the Judge has overlooked.” L. Civ. R.
7.1(i). The Court will reconsider a prior order only where a different outcome is justified by “(1)
an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence not available
previously; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.” N. River
Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995) (citations and brackets
omitted). A court commits a clear error of law “only if the record cannot support the findings that
led to that ruling.” ABS Brokerage Servs. V. Penson Fin. Servs., Inc., No. 09-CV-4590, 2010 WL
3257992, at *6 (D.N.J. Aug. 16, 2010) (citing United States v. Grape, 549 F.3d 591, 603-04 (3d
Cir. 2008)); and
WHEREAS “reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy, that is granted ‘very sparingly.’”
Brackett v. Ashcroft, No. 03-3988, 2003 WL 22303078, at *2 (D.N.J. Oct. 7, 2003) (emphasis
added) (citations omitted); see also Fellenz v. Lombard Inv. Corp., 400 F. Supp. 2d 681, 683
(D.N.J. 2005). A motion for reconsideration “may not be used to relitigate old matters, nor to raise
arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” P.
Schoenfeld Asset Mgmt., LLC v. Cendant Corp., 161 F. Supp. 2d 349, 352 (D.N.J. 2001). “Mere
‘disagreement with the Court’s decision’ does not suffice.” ABS Brokerage Servs., 2010 WL
3257992, at *6 (quoting P. Schoenfeld Asset Mgmt., 161 F. Supp. 2d at 353); and
WHEREAS here, Plaintiff fails to state a sufficient basis for reconsideration. There is no
dispute that Plaintiff’s relevant claims were adjudicated to final judgment in New Jersey state court

3

on May 13, 2011, ECF No. 61 at 3-4, and dismissed with prejudice in this Court on April 15, 2013,
id. at 9. Thus, Plaintiff’s claims were resolved nearly a decade prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling
in Tyler. See 598 U.S. 631. As the Supreme Court and Third Circuit have articulated, “[n]ew legal
principles, even when applied retroactively, do not apply to cases already closed.” Reynoldsville
Casket Co. v. Hyde, 514 U.S. 749, 758 (1995); see also Riccio v. Sentry Credit, Inc., 954 F.3d 582,
593 (3d Cir. 2020) (noting that controlling interpretations of federal law “must be given full
retroactive effect in all cases still open on direct review” (quoting Harper v. Va. Dep’t of Taxation,
509 U.S. 86, 97 (1993) (emphasis added)). Thus, Judge Vasquez did not err in denying to
retroactively apply Tyler to Plaintiff’s closed case, ECF No. 120 at 3, nor has Plaintiff pointed to
evidence or controlling law warranting a different outcome; and
WHEREAS Judge Vasquez’s decision not to retroactively apply Tyler was also
appropriate under the circumstances. See Knight v. Kaminski, 663 F. App’x 99, 101 (3d Cir. 2016)
(rejecting “any categorical rule that a change in decisional law is never an adequate basis for Rule
60(b)(6) relief” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Indeed, Plaintiff asserts that he
wishes to raise a takings claim predicated on the tax sale foreclosure carried out by Defendant
ATF. ECF No. 121 at 11. However, he already litigated this exact claim in state court, the claim
was dismissed, and Plaintiff was “barred from ever re-litigating the issue[ ] . . . against any or all
of the co-defendants named in th[at] action.” ECF No. 115-5 at 1; see also ECF No. 115-4 at 3437. And as Judge Hochberg previously found, Defendants here, against whom Plaintiff seeks to
assert an identical claim, satisfy the privity requirement for purposes of res judicata. ECF No. 61
at 7-8; see also Ouaziz v. Murphy, No. 23-cv-2696, 2024 WL 397708, at *5 (D.N.J. Feb. 2, 2024)
(finding that res judicata extends to new defendants where a plaintiff “‘assert[s] essentially the

4

same claim against different defendants’” (quoting Bruszewski v. United States, 181 F.2d 419, 422
(3d Cir. 1950)); and
WHEREAS in any event, Plaintiff’s takings claim—predicated on a tax sale foreclosure
carried out by a private entity—is substantively distinguishable from the facts at issue in Tyler
where the foreclosure was carried out by a municipality. See Tyler, 598 U.S. at 635; see also Stop
the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Fla. Dep’t of Env’t Prot., 560 U.S. 702, 715 (2010) (“[T]he
Takings Clause bars the State from taking private property without paying for it.” (emphasis in
original)); Flagg v. Yonkers Sav. & Loan Ass’n, FA, 307 F. Supp. 2d 565, 585 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)
(“It is beyond cavil that governmental action is required to trigger the application of [the Takings
Clause]; it does not apply to private parties who are not state or governmental actors.”). Plaintiff
offers no new evidence or change in controlling law to challenge these conclusions.
Accordingly, it is on this 24th day of April 2024,
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 121) of Judge Vasquez’s
August 30, 2023, Opinion and Order (ECF No. 120) is hereby DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that this action shall remain CLOSED.
SO ORDERED.

s/ Claire C. Cecchi
_________________________________
CLAIRE C. CECCHI, U.S.D.J.

5