HEINE et al v. DIRECTOR OF CODES AND STANDARDS et al

Filing 99

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Esther Salas on 05/11/2018. (ek)

Not for Publication
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ELLEN HEINE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DIRECTOR OF CODES AND
STANDARDS, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil Action No. 15-8210 (ES) (MAH)
MEMORANDUM OPINION

SALAS, DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration (D.E.
Nos. 80, 87 (“Pls. Mov. Br.”))1 of the Court’s September 11, 2017 Opinion and Order (D.E. Nos.
78 & 79 (together the “Opinion and Order”)) granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Defendants
opposed Plaintiffs’ motion. (D.E. Nos. 95, 96, 97 & 98). Having considered the parties’
submissions in support of and in opposition to the instant motion, the Court decides the motion
without oral argument. See L. Civ. R. 78.1. For the reasons below, Plaintiffs’ motion for
reconsideration is DENIED.
Legal Standard. In the District of New Jersey, Local Civil Rule 7.1 governs motions for
reconsideration. Morton v. Fauver, No. 97-5127, 2011 WL 2975532, at *1 (D.N.J. July 21,
2011) (citing Bowers v. NCAA, 130 F. Supp. 2d 610, 612 (D.N.J. 2001)). Reconsideration

1

On September 22, 2017, Plaintiffs informed the Court of their intent to file a motion for reconsideration and
requested an extension on their time to submit a brief in support of their motion. (D.E. No. 80). The Court granted
Plaintiffs’ request over Defendants’ objections and extended Plaintiffs’ time to file their brief until November 9, 2017.
(D.E. No. 86). Plaintiffs’ brief submitted via the Court’s ECF system on November 10, 2017, however, appears to be
incomplete. (See Pls. Mov. Br.). Specifically, Plaintiffs’ brief appears to be missing pages four and five. (See id.).
On December 1, 2017, this Court issued an order instructing Plaintiffs to submit the missing pages by December 5,
2017. (D.E. No. 93). To date, Plaintiffs have failed to submit the missing pages.

1

under Local Civil Rule 7.1 is an extraordinary remedy that is rarely granted. Interfaith Cmty. Org.
v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 215 F. Supp. 2d 482, 507 (D.N.J. 2002). A motion for reconsideration
may be based on one of three separate grounds: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2)
new evidence not previously available; or (3) a need to correct a clear error of law or to prevent
manifest injustice. Id. A motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity to raise new matters or
arguments that could have been raised before the original decision was made. See Bowers, 130 F.
Supp. 2d at 612-13. Nor is a motion for reconsideration an opportunity to ask the Court to rethink
what it has already thought through. See Interfaith Cmty. Org., 215 F. Supp. 2d at 507. “Rather,
the rule permits a reconsideration only when ‘dispositive factual matters or controlling decisions
of law’ were presented to the court but were overlooked.” Id. (quoting Resorts Int’l v. Greate Bay
Hotel & Casino, 830 F. Supp. 826, 831 (D.N.J. 1992)).
Analysis. As the Court already summarized the factual background in its prior Opinion
and Order, the Court incorporates those facts here. For the reasons below, the Court finds that
Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden under the standard set forth above.
Change in the Law. Plaintiffs have not suggested that there has been a change in the law
since the Court’s September 11, 2017 Opinion and Order. So, the first avenue under the standard
is therefore not a grounds to reconsider this Court’s prior ruling.
New Evidence. Plaintiffs appear to argue that new evidence has become available thereby
warranting the extraordinary remedy of reconsideration. Although Plaintiffs refer to “additional
information that has become available since the filing of the original complaint” and “continued
discovery” that “provides empirical evidence of the policies and practices of the municipalities
named in the litigation,” Plaintiffs nowhere address what this purported new evidence actually is.
(See Pls. Mov. Br. at 3, 10). Plaintiffs have attached to their motion a number of allegedly new

2

documents, comprising a notice of imminent hazard, a violation notice, an invoice, and a bulletin
published by Defendant Department of Community Affairs. (Pls. Mov. Br. at 11-19). All of these
documents, however, were generated in September 2013—two years before Plaintiffs filed their
November 20, 2015 Complaint and four years before this Court’s September 11, 2017 Opinion
and Order. (See id.). And “if the moving party merely raises arguments or presents evidence that
could have been raised or presented before the original decision was reached,” the motion for
reconsideration fails. Summerfield v. Equifax Info. Servs. LLC, 264 F.R.D. 133, 145 (D.N.J. 2009).
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ arguments based on purported new evidence provide no grounds to modify
this Court’s prior ruling.
Clear Error of Law and Manifest Injustice. Liberally interpreted, Plaintiffs’ motion
appears to rest on the position that reconsideration is necessary to correct a clear error of law or
prevent manifest injustice. Generally, this means that the Court overlooked some dispositive
factual or legal matter that was presented to it. See L. Civ. R. 7.1(i); see also Rose v. Alternative
Ins. Works, LLC, No. 06-1818, 2007 WL 2533894, at *1 (D.N.J. Aug. 31, 2007).
Plaintiffs have failed to show a need to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest
injustice. See Interfaith Cmty. Org., 215 F. Supp. 2d at 507. Rather, Plaintiffs’ arguments are
based on their personal disagreements with the Court’s reasoning in its Opinion and Order. (See
generally Pls. Mov. Br.).

That, however, is not an appropriate basis for a motion for

reconsideration, as such disagreements should be raised through the appellate process. See Smart
v. Aramark Inc., No. 14-3007, 2014 WL 4053961, at *6 (D.N.J. Aug. 15, 2015). For example,
Plaintiffs take issue with, among other things, the Court’s (i) application of the res judicata doctrine
(Pls. Mov. Br. at 3); (ii) alternative grounds for dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Complaint (id. at 3, 11);
and (iii) futility analysis (id. at 3). But again, a motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity to

3

ask the Court to rethink what it has already thought through. See Interfaith Cmty. Org., 215 F.
Supp. 2d at 507.
Plaintiffs, therefore, have failed to proffer any change in law since the Court dismissed
their Complaint, present any new evidence, or point to any error made on the part of the Court in
its Opinion and Order. On the contrary, Plaintiffs rehash the same arguments that were previously
considered—and rejected—by the Court. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion is denied.
Conclusion. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
s/Esther Salas
Esther Salas, U.S.D.J.

4