ROMAN v. CITY OF NEWARK et al

Filing 134

OPINION. Signed by Judge Susan D. Wigenton on 9/25/2020. (bt, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CHAMBERS OF

MARTIN LUTHER KING COURTHOUSE
50 WALNUT ST.
NEWARK, NJ 07101
973-645-5903

SUSAN D. WIGENTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

September 25, 2020

Kenyatta K. Stewart, Esq.
Wilson D. Antoine, Esq.
City of Newark, Department of Law
920 Broad Street, Room 316
Newark, NJ 07102
Counsel for Defendant
Justin D. Santagata, Esq.
Kaufman Semeraro & Leibman, LLP
Fort Lee Executive Park
Two Executive Drive, Suite 530
Fort Lee, NJ 07024
Counsel for Plaintiff

LETTER OPINION FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT
Re:

Estate of Adriano Roman, Jr. v. City of Newark
Civil Action No. 16-1110 (SDW) (LDW)

Counsel:
Before this Court is Defendant City of Newark’s (“Newark” or “Defendant”) Motion for
Reconsideration of this Court’s June 24, 2020 grant of partial summary judgment to Plaintiff
(“June 24th Decision”). (D.E. 112, 113). This Court, having considered the parties’ submissions
and having reached its decision without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
78, and for the reasons discussed below, DENIES Newark’s motion.
DISCUSSION
A.
“Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly authorize motions for
reconsideration, Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) provides for such a review.” Sch. Specialty, Inc. v.
Ferrentino, Civ. No. 14-4507, 2015 WL 4602995, at *2 (D.N.J. July 30, 2015). A motion for
reconsideration is “an extremely limited procedural vehicle,” Ferrentino, 2015 WL 4602995 at *2

(internal citations omitted), which is to be granted “sparingly.” A.K. Stamping Co., Inc. v.
Instrument Specialties Co., Inc., 106 F. Supp. 2d 627, 662 (D.N.J. 2000). A party moving for
reconsideration must file its motion within fourteen (14) days “after the entry of the order or
judgment on the original motion” and set “forth concisely the matter or controlling decisions which
the party believes the . . . Judge has overlooked.” L. Civ. R. 7.1(i). This deadline may be relaxed
“only in extraordinary circumstances to prevent ‘surprise or injustice’.” Hargrove v. Sleepy’s LLC,
Civ. No. 10-1138, 2019 WL 8881823, at *2 n.1 (D.N.J. May 9, 2019).
Motions to reconsider are only proper where the moving party shows “(1) an intervening
change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the
court [reached its original decision]; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to
prevent manifest injustice.” Max’s Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999).
Mere disagreement with a court’s decision is not an appropriate basis upon which to bring a motion
for reconsideration as such disagreement should “be raised through the appellate process.” U.S. v.
Compaction Sys. Corp., 88 F. Supp. 2d 339, 345 (D.N.J. 1999).
B.
The Court assumes the parties’ familiarity with the factual and procedural history of this
action and addresses only those facts necessary for resolution of the instant motion. Defendant
acknowledges that its motion is out of time, (see D.E. 121-7 at 8-9), but argues that it “should be
treated as within time in the interests of justice” because new evidence, in the form of an audio
recording of a witness allegedly recanting her prior testimony, is only now available. (D.E. 121-7
at 9-12.)
Unfortunately for Defendant, the evidence it relies on is neither new, nor newly discovered.
Contrary to Defendant’s claim that the recording was unavailable at the time of the June 24th
Decision, Defendant informed this Court during oral argument that “it was aware that such an
audio might exist,” (id. at 12; D.E. 121-6 at 19), and had attempted to obtain the recording once in
2016 and then again in late 2019. (See D.E. 121-4 Ex. 2.) 1 Thus it is clear that the recording
existed in 2016 and was known to the Defendant at that time. As to whether Defendant was unable
to obtain the recording prior to June 24th, motions for reconsideration based on a claim of newly
discovered evidence require that the moving party show reasonable diligence in attempting to
obtain the evidence at issue. See, e.g., Pilsco v. Union R. Co., 379 F.2d 15, 16 (3d Cir. 1967).
Three letters over the course of three years is not diligence. 2 As a result, Defendant fails to show
the extraordinary circumstances necessary to treat its motion as timely and the motion will be
denied.

1

Defendant ultimately received a copy of the recording on July 9, 2020. (See D.E. 121-4 Ex. 2.) Even if this Court
were to consider relaxing the 14-day window for motions for reconsideration, the logical extension would have been
July 23rd, fourteen days from the date Defendant received the recording. Defendant’s motion, however, was not filed
until July 27th.
2
Equally problematic for Defendant is its failure to attempt to depose the witness in order to ascertain what
testimony was allegedly perjurious. As it stands, the recording itself has not been authenticated, nor does it contain
any specific statements as to what testimony might be recanted. (D.E. 121-2 Ex. 1.)

2

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of the June 24th
Decision is DENIED. An appropriate order follows.

___/s/ Susan D. Wigenton_____
SUSAN D. WIGENTON, U.S.D.J.

Orig: Clerk
cc:
Parties
Leda D. Wettre, U.S.M.J.

3