D. RUSSO INC. et al v. ROMANKOW et al

Filing 109

OPINION & ORDER Denying 105 Motion for Reconsideration, and also Denying 107 Cross-Motion for Reconsideration, etc. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 5/21/2018. (JB, )

Case 2:12-cv-02397-SRC-CLW Document 109 Filed 05/21/18 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 1443

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
____________________________________
:
D. RUSSO INC. et al.,
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
v.
:
:
JEFFREY CHIESA et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
____________________________________:

Civil Action No. 12-2397 (SRC)

OPINION & ORDER

CHESLER, U.S.D.J.
This matter comes before the Court on two motions for reconsideration, pursuant to L.
Civ. R. 7.1(i): 1) the motion by Plaintiffs D. Russo Inc. t/a “H22,” Kevin Hickey (“Hickey”), and
the estate of Daniel Russo (collectively, “Plaintiffs”); and 2) the cross-motion by Defendants
Daniel Antonelli, Suzette Cavados, Manuel Figeuiredo, Joseph Florio, Kevin Kalendek, Ronald
Manzella, Richard Milanda, Clifton People, Anthony Terrezza, and the Township of Union
(collectively, the “Township.”) For the reasons stated below, both motions will be denied.
Both parties move for reconsideration of this Court’s Opinion and Order entered August
2, 2017. Plaintiffs also move for reconsideration of this Court’s Opinion and Order entered May
16, 2013. Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration on April 6, 2018 – over 8 months after the later
decision, and close to five years after the earlier decision. L. Civ. R. 7.1(i) states: “ a motion for
reconsideration shall be served and filed within 14 days after the entry of the order or judgment
on the original motion.” Plaintiffs’ brief offers no explanation for the lengthy delay in filing this
motion, but points to an attorney certification which details many challenges in the attorney’s
personal life which occurred after August of 2017. The Court observes that Plaintiffs’ arguments

Case 2:12-cv-02397-SRC-CLW Document 109 Filed 05/21/18 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 1444

cite no new law or newly discovered evidence as a basis for the delay. It appears that Plaintiffs’
arguments could have been asserted within the time period allowed by L. Civ. R. 7.1(i). The
same observations are true for Defendants’ cross-motion.
Both motions are untimely and will be denied.
For these reasons,
IT IS on this 21st day of May, 2018
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration (Docket Entry No. 105) is
DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants’ cross-motion for reconsideration (Docket Entry No. 107) is
DENIED.

s/ Stanley R. Chesler
Stanley R. Chesler, U.S.D.J.

2