CEVDET AKSUT VE OGULLARI KOLL.STI v. CAVUSOGLU et al

Filing 61

OPINION and ORDER denying 11 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 11/14/14. (gh, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CEVDET AKSUT VE OGULLARI
KOLL, STI.

Civ. No. 14-3362 (WJM)

v.
OPINION & ORDER
ROBIN A. CAVUSOGLU, et al.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration of an Order dated June 5, 2014, which vacated with prejudice a
Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause. The Court will deny the
Motion as untimely and meritless. The Court also admonishes Plaintiff to adhere
strictly to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Civil Rules.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is governed by Local Civil Rule
7.1(i). Under the Rule, a motion for reconsideration must be filed within 14 days
after the order is entered. Mitchell v. Twp. of Willingboro Municipality Gov’t, 913
F. Supp. 2d 62, 78 (D.N.J. 2012). A motion may properly be denied solely on the
basis that it is not timely filed.

Id.

In fact, “[a]n untimely motion for

reconsideration is ‘void and of no effect.’” Adams USA, Inc. v. Reda Sports, Inc.,
1

220 F. App’x 139, 141 (3d Cir. 2007) (quoting Amatangelo v. Borough of Donora,
212 F.3d 776, 780 (3d Cir. 2000)).
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration was filed on June 20, 2014, fifteen
days after the Order was entered on June 5th. As such, Plaintiff’s Motion is
untimely.
Notwithstanding

the

timeliness

issue,

the

Plaintiff’s

Motion

for

Reconsideration lacks merit. A motion for reconsideration may be granted if: (1)
an intervening change in the controlling law has occurred; (2) evidence not
previously available has become available; or (3) it is necessary to correct a clear
error of law or prevent manifest injustice. See North River Insurance Co. v.
CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995). The Plaintiff does
not point to any intervening change in the law or new evidence that was not
available when the Court rendered its decision.

Plaintiff’s arguments about

manifest injustice are simply unconvincing.
Finally, the Court admonishes Plaintiff to adhere to all technicalities of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Civil Rules. Not only was the
Motion for Reconsideration late, but Plaintiff also improperly submitted a Reply
Brief to this Motion for Reconsideration without first seeking leave of the Court.
This comes after Plaintiff failed to properly serve the underlying Temporary
Restraining Order on the Defendants.
2

For the reasons set forth above,
IT IS on this 14th day of November, 2014 hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

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

3