STAMPONE v. WALKER et al

Filing 70

OPINION. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 4/5/17. (DD, ) N/M

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
FREDERICK STAMPONE,
Civil Action No.: 15-6956 (JLL)

Plaintiff,

OPINION

V.

MATTHEW WALKER (DIRECTOR Of
OPERATIONS), and NEW YORK CITY
DISTRICT COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS,
Defendants.

LINARES, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court by way of pro se Plaintiffs “Motion to Reconsider
[this Court’s Order and Opinion Dismissing his Second Amended Complaint] and Stay Also [sic]
Extension of Time to File

3rd

Amended Complaint,” (ECF No. 64) pursuant to L. R. Civ. P. 7.1

(ECF No. 64). Defendants George Laufenberg, Northeast Carpenters Funds, Matthew Walker,
New York City District Council of Carpenters, and New York City District Council of Carpenters
Benefit Funds (collectively “Defendants”) have all submitted opposition (ECF Nos. 66, 6$, and
69), which Plaintiff has not replied to. The Court has considered the parties’ submissions and
decides this matter without oral argument pursuant to Rule 7$ of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs’
Motion for Reconsideration and Extension of Time to File a Third Amended Complaint.
BACKGROUND
The facts of this action have been described at great length in a number of Opinions issued
by this Court, including in the Court’s most recent Opinion from which Plaintiff seeks

reconsideration. As such, and in the interest of judicial economy, the Court refers the parties to
those Opinions for a factual background.
LEGAL STANDARD
“[R]econsideration is an extraordinary remedy that is granted ‘very sparing/v.” L. Civ. R.
7.1(i) cmt. 6(d) (quoting Brackett v. Ashcroft, Civ. No. 03-3988, 2003 WL 22303078, *2 (D.N.J.
Oct. 7, 2003) (Martini, J.)) (emphasis added); see also Fetlenz v. Lombard Investment Corp., 400
f.Supp.2d 681, 683 (D.N.J. 2005) (Thompson, J.). A motion for reconsideration “may not be used
to re-litigate old matters, nor to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised
prior to the entry ofjudgment.” P. Schoenfeld Asset Mgmt., LLCv. Cendant Corp., 161 F.Supp.2d
349, 352 (D.N.J. 2001) (Walls, J.). To prevail on a motion for reconsideration, the moving party
must “set[

]

forth concisely the matter or controlling decisions which the party believes the Judge

or Magistrate Judge has overlooked.” L. Civ. R. 7.1(1).
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 previously
available; 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, 121$ (3d Cir. 1995) (internal quotations omitted).
A court commits clear error of law “only if the record cannot support the findings that led to the
ruling.” ABS Brokerage Ser’s. v. Penson fin. Servs., Inc., No. 09—4590, 2010 WL 3257992, at *6

(D.N.J. Aug.16, 2010) (citing Un ited States v. Grape, 549 F.3d 591, 603—04 (3d Cir. 200$) “Thus,
a party must

.

.

.

demonstrate that (1) the holdings on which it bases its request were without

support in the record, or (2) would result in ‘manifest injustice’ if not addressed.” Id. “Mere
‘disagreement with the Court’s decision’ does not suffice.” Id. (quoting P. Schoenfeld, 161

2

f.$upp.2d at 353). Moreover, when the assertion is that the Court overlooked something, the
Court must have overlooked some dispositive factual or legal matter that was presented to it. See
L. Civ. R. 7.1(i).
ANALYSIS

Plaintiff begins his motion by stating “Plaintiff is [p]ro [s]e and [d]oes [n]ot [u]nderstand”
the reason for dismissal of his Second Amended Complaint. (See ECF No. 60-1 (“P1. Mov. Br.”)
at 2). He continues by asserting that “tilt appears that the court wants plaintiff to file a [p]re-[t]rial
submission with out [sic] having an Order for [d]iscovery and the court is giving plaintiff less ±hn
[sic] 2 weeks to file this.” (Id.). According to Plaintiff, it will take him “more than 2 months just

to figure out what the court is looking for.” (Id.). Apparently, Plaintiff believes that discovery
and “[v]ital {i]nformation” is necessary “to prove his case.” (Id.). Plaintiff goes on to recite the
procedural posture of this action, of which this Court has addressed in its prior Opinions. (P1.
Mov. Br. at 2-3).
After a review of Plaintiffs submissions, this Court must deny his Motion for
Reconsideration. This is because said Motion fails to meet the above standard. Plaintiff does not
cite to any change in intervening controlling law, or any law whatsoever, which would require this
Court to overturn its prior decision. Additionally, Plaintiff does not point to any new evidence
which recently availed itself to him that would change this Court’s prior disposition. Finally,
Plaintiff does not submit that this Court made any clear error of law or manifest injustice that
would require reversal.
Rather, Plaintiff seems to be attempting to re-litigate the merits of Defendants’ Motions to
Dismiss, which resulted in the dismissal of Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint. Indeed, a
3

review of the Plaintiffs Motion shows that Plaintiff strictly relies upon his prior submissions. For
example, Plaintiffs “Statement of Undisputed Facts” explicitly relies on exhibits relating to his
December 2016 “Motion to Stay, Motion for Discovery” (ECF No. 52), which was later deemed
to be Plaintiffs purported opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint. (P1. Mov. Br. at 4-5,

¶J

6, 7, 8, 12, 17, 19, and 21). Plaintiffs “Legal Argument”

section also relies on previously submitted material. (P1. Mov. Br. at 6). However, as noted above,
that is not the purpose of a Motion for Reconsideration.

As discussed, a Motion for

Reconsideration is not designed to be an opportunity to re-litigate an unfavorable outcome, but
rather, it is a vehicle for litigants to allow the Court to correct any error in its prior decisions.
Simply put, Plaintiff has not provided this Court with a single argument, citation to law, or fact
warranting reconsideration. Accordingly, since Plaintiff has not met the high standard to succeed
on Motion for Reconsideration, the Court denies the application. Nonetheless, given his pro se
status, the Court will grant Plaintiffs request for an extension of time to file a Third Amended
Complaint.
CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, the Court denies Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff
shall have until Friday, May 5, 2017 to file a Third Amended Complaint to address the deficiencies
identified in the Court’s February 8, 2017 Opinion. Further, as noted in said Opinion, the Third
Amended Complaint is to include a separate section for each cause of action being asserted. Each
section shall cQntain separate numbered paragraphs with substantive facts relating to the cause of
action being asserted. Failure to comply with these instructions, including the deadline set forth
herein to file the Third Amended Complaint, shall result in a dismissal with prejudice. An
4

appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion.

DATED: April 1’2Ol7
JOSE’,I LINARES
U?(ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5