MINT HILL/KERR/NASHVILLE, LLC. v. SPC ACQUISITION COMPANY LLC et al

Filing 23

Opinion and ORDER denying 22 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge William H. Walls on 1/7/15. (jd, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MINT HILL/KERR/NASHVILLE LLC,
Plaintiff,

MEMOfljDjJ OPINION
AND ORDER

V.

SPC ACQUISITION COMPANY LLC,
DONALD HANSON, STUART ALPERT,
and PETER HANSON,

Civ. No. 14-4401 (WHW)(CLW)

Defendants.

...
....

Walls, Senior District Jugç
Plaintiff Mint Hill/Kerr/Nashville, LLC moves for reconsideration of this Court’s order
of December 22, 2014, granting Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and entering
judgment in Plaintiff’s favor in the amount of its litigation expenses in bringing this action. In
this motion, brought under Local Rule 7.1, Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its ruling as to
the amount of damages to which Plaintiff is entitled. Decided without oral argument under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 78, Plaintiff’s motion is denied.
A motion for reconsideration will only be granted where (1) an intervening change in the
law has occurred, (2) new evidence not previously available has emerged, or (3) the need to
correct a clear error of law or prevent a manifest injustice arises. North River Ins. C’o. v. JGNA
Reins. C’o., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995). Reconsideration motions may not be used to
relitigate old matters, nor to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
before the entry ofjudgment. Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal
Practice and Procedure

§ 2810.1. “A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a

disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered
by the court before rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party’s burden.”
Gutierrez v. Ashcroft, 289 F. Supp, 2d 555, 561 (D.N,J. 2003).
In its opinion granting Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, ECF No. 20, this
Court did not overlook any settled law. There has been no intervening change in the law, and no
new evidence not previously available has emerged. Plaintiff did not present anything in the
motion for reconsideration that it did not present before—nothing is being said now that was not
said then. As a result, this motion for reconsideration is denied. See Max’s Seafood Cafe ex rd.
Lou-Ann v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999); Buffa v. N.J State Dep ‘t ofJudiciary,
56 Fed. App’x 571, 575 (3d Cir. 2003).

ORDER
This matter having come before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, ECF
No. 22, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion is denied.
Date: January 7, 2015

nit

2

tat

nior District Judge