TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. MAAS et al
Filing
45
OPINION AND ORDER, Denying 37 MOTION for Reconsideration by DENNIS MAAS. It is further Ordered that Defendant Maas, has seven (7) days from the date of this order to answer the Complaint. Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 1/26/2018. (JB, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Plainttff
Civil Action No. 16-4419
(JMV) (MAH)
V.
OPINION & ORDER
DENNIS MAAS and the HOYT
CORPORATION,
Defendants.
John Michael Vazguez, U.S.D.J.
This case comes before the Court on Defendant Dennis Maas’ motion for reconsideration
of the denial of his motion to dismiss. D.E. 37. Defendant Hoyt Corporation opposes the
motion. D.E. 38. Maas previously moved to dismiss the interpleader Complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, D.E. 24, which the Court denied, D.E. 35, 36. The Court has
reviewed all of the submissions made in support or in opposition to the motion, and considered
the motion without oral argument pursuant to L. Civ. R. 78.1(b). For the reasons stated below,
Defendant Maas’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED.1
I.
Standard of Review
In the District of New Jersey, motions for reconsideration can be made pursuant to Local
Civil Rule 7.1(1). The rule provides that such motions must be made within 14 days of the entry
The relevant background and procedural history are recounted in the Court’s Order and
Opinion denying Maas’ motion to dismiss. D.E. 35, 36.
of an order.2 Substantively, a motion for reconsideration is viable when one of three scenarios is
present: (1) an intervening change in the 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.
Carmichael v. Everson, No. 03-4787, 2004 WL 1587894, at *1 (D.N.J. May 21, 2004) (citations
omitted).
A motion for reconsideration, however, does not entitle a party to a second bite at the
apple. Therefore, a motion for reconsideration is inappropriate when a party merely disagrees
with a court’s ruling or when a party simply wishes to re-argue or re-hash its original motion.
Sch. Specialty, Inc. v. ferrentino, No. 14-4507, 2015 WL 4602995, *23 (D.N.J. July 30, 2015);
see also Florham Park Chevron, Inc. v. Chevron US.A., 680 F. Supp. 159, 162 (D.N.J. 1988).
Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy” that is granted “very sparingly.” Brackett v.
Ashcroft, 2003 WL 22303078, at *2 (D.N.J. Oct. 7, 2003) (citations omitted). Moreover, a
motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity to raise matters that could have been raised
before the original decision was reached. Bowers v. NcAA, 130 F. Supp. 2d 610, 613 (D.N.J.
2001).
IL
Analysis
Maas argues in his motion for reconsideration that the Court should refrain from deciding
this case under the Younger abstention doctrine; second, that the entire controversy doctrine
precludes parties from re-litigating issues in federal court that are simultaneously pending in
state court; and that state claims predominate this case. See Brief in Support of Maas’ Motion
for Reconsideration, D.E. 37 at pg. 4, 6, 8.
Given that an amended Order & Opinion was filed eleven days after the original Order &
Opinion, the Court will overlook Defendant’s lateness in filing his motion, though there were no
substantive changes to the Court’s analysis or decision.
2
2
At the outset, Maas fails to indicate under which of the three bases for relief he is
proceeding. The first prong, an intervening change in the controlling law, does not apply to any
of the new arguments. As to the Younger abstention argument, Maas did raise this argument in
his initial motion, but failed to provide any substantive analysis. Thus, his request for relief on
this ground is denied because he is merely rehashing his previous argument and, to the extent he
is now engaging in an actual analysis of the doctrine, he clearly could have done so in his initial
motion to dismiss.
As to the remaining arguments, the entire controversy doctrine and state claims
predominating, Maas did not raise these arguments in his original motion to dismiss. Nor has
Maas given any reason why he failed to do so or could not have done so. In fact, Defendant’s
brief does not cite the reconsideration standard at all, except to say that the issues raised in the
instant motion were “not briefed previously” and were “overlooked in the previous motion and
Opinion[.]” Obviously, the Court could not have overlooked that which was not raised.
Reconsideration can be granted only where “dispositive factual matters or controlling decisions
of law were brought to the court’s attention but not considered.” Brackett, 2003 WL 22303078,
at *2 (citations omitted). This is clearly not the case here. Instead, it appears that Maas did not
realize that when he consented to Judge Clark’s October 6, 2016 order, D.E. 10, which permitted
Transamerica to deposit the funds at issue with the Court while at the same time requiring Maas
to implead his right to the money, that Maas was going to continue to litigate the case in this
Court. That misunderstanding, however, is not a basis for relief. Thus, Defendant’s motion is
denied.
III.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, and for good cause shown,
3
IT IS on this 26th day of January,
ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED, and it is further
ORDERED that Defendant Maas has seven (7) days from the date of this order to
answer the Complaint.
John Michael Vazez,jU.$.D.J.
4
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?