ROMAN v. CITY OF NEWARK et al
LETTER OPINION. Signed by Judge Susan D. Wigenton on 6/5/17. (sr, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
MARTIN LUTHER KING COURTHOUSE
50 WALNUT ST.
NEWARK, NJ 07101
SUSAN D. WIGENTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
June 5, 2017
Marc E. Leibman, Esq.
Kaufman, Semeraro, & Leibman, LLP
Two Executive Drive, Suite 530
Fort Lee, New Jersey 07024
Attorney for Plaintiff
Wilson D. Antoine, Esq.
Assistant Corporation Counsel
City of Newark – Department of Law
920 Broad Street, Room 316
Newark, NJ 07102
Attorney for Defendants
LETTER OPINION FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT
Roman v. City of Newark, et al.
Civil Action No. 16-1110 (SDW) (LDW)
Before this Court is Plaintiff Adriano Roman’s (“Plaintiff” or “Roman”) Motion for
Reconsideration of this Court’s April 7, 2017 Letter Order granting Defendant City of Newark,
Roger Mendes, Albano Ferreira, Onofre Cabezas, Joseph Cueto, Miguel Ressurreicao, William
Golpe, and Joyce Hill’s (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). This Court having considered
the parties’ submissions, having reached its decision without oral argument pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 78, for the reasons discussed below, DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.
A. Standard of Review
Motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) and must be filed
within fourteen (14) days “after the entry of the order or judgment on the original motion by the
Judge or Magistrate Judge.” L. CIV. R. 7.1(i). Rule 7.1(i) requires the moving party to file a brief
“setting forth concisely the matter or controlling decisions which the party believes the . . . Judge
has overlooked.” Id. A motion for reconsideration is 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). “Reconsideration, however, is an extraordinary remedy and should be granted
‘very sparingly.’” Wyeth v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., No. 04-2355(JLL), 2010 WL
3211126, at *2 (D.N.J. Aug. 13, 2010) (internal citation omitted).
B. This Court’s April 7, 2017 Letter Order Was Not Clearly Erroneous or Contrary to
Law and Plaintiff Fails to Show An Intervening Change In The Law Or Previously
Unavailable New Evidence
This Court’s April 7, 2017 Letter Order clearly identified and applied the proper legal
standards for a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff
does not identify any intervening change in the relevant law. Plaintiff has not presented new
evidence that was unavailable at the time this Court entered its decision. Plaintiff also fails to
demonstrate the existence of an error of fact or law that, if left uncorrected, would result in
manifest injustice. Rather, Plaintiff merely reiterates the same arguments made in his opposition
to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, all of which were addressed in this Court’s April 7, 2017
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s April 7, 2017 Letter
Order is DENIED.
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s April
7, 2017 Letter Order is DENIED. An appropriate order follows.
___/s/ Susan D. Wigenton_____
SUSAN D. WIGENTON, U.S.D.J.
Leda D. Wettre, U.S.M.J.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?