ONG et al v. SUPERIOR COURT OF HUDSON COUNTY et al

Filing 44

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 39 Motion for Protective Order; Denying 40 Motion Opposing for another Extension of Time against Defendants; Denying 41 Motion for Default Judgment ; Denying 42 Motion for Reentry of Statement of Claims Injuries and Relief; Denying 43 Motion to Remove Attorney Matthew Eric Blackman from this case. Signed by Judge Kevin McNulty on 06/13/2017. (ek) (Main Document 44 replaced on 6/13/2017) (nic).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Civ. No. 16-06777 (KM)(JBC)
Plaintiffs,

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

V.

SUPERIOR COURT OF HUDSON
COUNTY, et aL,
Defendants.
Before the Court are motions of the plaintiffs, Johanna Ong and Dr.
Beverley Ong, that seek four forms of relief. (ECF nos. 39, 40, 41, 42)1 have
interpreted them as motions for reconsideration of prior rulings of the Court,
rendered some two days previously. In addition, the Ongs seek to remove
attorney Matthew Eric Blackman from the case. (ECF no. 43) I will deny these
motions without requiring a response.
A.

Reconsideration
I first discuss the four reconsideration motions.
On June 6, 2017, the Court filed the following:
(a) an Opinion (ECF no. 36) and Order (ECF no. 37) granting the motions

of defendants Jersey City Medical Center (“JCMC”), the Sheriff of Hudson
County (the “Sheriff”), and the Hudson County Correctional Center (“HCCC”) to
dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, essentially on statute of
limitations grounds;
(b) a Memorandum and Order (ECF no. 38) denying the motions of the
plaintiffs requesting three forms of relief:
(i) Issuance of order of protection and no-contact order against
I

Babak Pasdar et al.;
(ii) Denial of further extensions of time to answer;
(iii) Entry of default judgment against all defendants/respondents
for failure to answer the Complaints;
Two days later, on June 8, 2017, the Ongs filed motions seeking the
following relief:
(a) Reentry Motion for Issuance of an Order of Protection

...

And Reentry

Motion for Issuance of Permanent No Contact Order Against Babk Pasdar [et
al.1 (ECF no. 39)
(b) Reentry Motion opposing for another Extension of Time against the
Defendants/Respondents for Failure to answer the Complaints of the
Plaintiffs/Petitioners (ECF no. 40)
(c) Reentry of Motion to Grant a Default Judgment against the Seven
Defendants/Respondents

....

(ECF no. 41)

(d) Motion for Reentry of Statement of Claims Injuries & Relief in the
Original Package of US District Court Application (ECF no. 42)
Motions (a), (b), and (c) are immediately recognizable as requests for
precisely the relief denied in my prior Memorandum and Order. Although titled
as “Reentry” motions, they are clearly motions for reconsideration. The title of
Motion (d) is less clear, but on review it appears to be a motion for
reconsideration of my grant of three defendants’ motions to dismiss in my prior
Opinion and Order.’
Local Rule 7.1(i) governs motions for reconsideration. Such a motion
must specifically identify “the matter or controlling decisions which the party
believes the Judge or Magistrate Judge has overlooked.” Id. Reconsideration is
granted sparingly, generally only in one of three situations: (1) when there has
In connection with Motion (d) I have not overlooked a letter dated June 8, 2017,
which is attached to another motion. (ECF no. 43-3)
2

been an intervening change in the law; (2) when new evidence has become
available; or (3) when necessary to correct a clear error of law or to prevent
manifest injustice. See North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d
1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995); Carmichael v. Everson, 2004 WL 1587894 (D.N.J.
May 21, 2004). “A motion for reconsideration is improper when it is used ‘to
ask the Court to rethink what it had already thought through

—

rightly or

wrongly.” Oritani Say. & Loan Ass’n v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 744 F. Supp.
1311, 1314 (D.N.J. 1990) (quoting Above the Belt v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc.,
99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). Evidence or arguments that were available
at the time of the original decision will not support a motion for
reconsideration. Damiano v. Sony Music Entm’t, Inc., 975 F. Supp. 623, 636
(D.N.J. 1997); see also North River Ins. Co., 52 F.3d at 1218; Bapu Corp. v.
Choice Hotels Int’l, Inc., 2010 WL 5418972, at *4 (D.N.J. Dec. 23, 2010) (citing
P. Schoenfeld Asset Mgmt. LLC v. Cendant Corp., 161 F. Supp. 2d 349, 352
(D.N.J. 2001)).
These motions for reconsideration repeat the grounds asserted in the
prior motions. The exhibits consist largely of pleadings, letters, and the like
that were before the court previously. These motions rehash the same facts
asserted before. There are no significant new legal grounds or facts asserted—
and certainly none that could not have been asserted on the prior motions. The
plaintiffs simply ask the Court to change its mind. In short, there are no
grounds for a motion for reconsideration.
The prior Opinion and Memorandum stated the reasons for the Court’s
rulings; they are incorporated by reference and will not be repeated here.
Nothing in the current motions undermines those reasons. There are no facts,
for example, bringing the claims within the statute of limitations. Nor are there
any facts demonstrating that the plaintiffs’ request for an order of protection
against their neighbors is a federal matter, or that the court erred in granting
extensions of time to answer.
The motions to reconsider are therefore denied.
3

B.

Disqualification of counsel
The only new aspect of these motions is the request to remove attorney

Matthew Eric Blackman from the case. (ECF no. 43) Blackman represented
defendant Jersey City Medical Center in this action. The short answer to the
motion is that it is moot; the case has been dismissed against JCMC, and
Blackman represents no other party. The plaintiffs may have a complaint about
the attorney’s conduct, but the issue of his removal is no longer relevant.
2
ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS this 13th day of June, 2017
ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motions (ECF nos. 39, 40, 41, 42, 43) are
DENIED.

/

c/

K yin McNulty
United States District Judge

2

7

“

The grounds for the motion are stated most clearly in an attached letter. (ECF no. 43-3
at 14) Plaintiffs allege that Blackman attached fraudulent postal forms to a certification having
to do with mailing of papers. (The reference may be to the papers opposing the plaintiffs’
motion for default judgment. See ECF no. 43-2 at 14—21.) It would have no bearing on the
grounds for dismissal of claims against JCMC, i.e., the running of the statute of limitations.
And the grounds for denial of a default judgment—e.g., that no default has been entered by the
clerk, and that JCMC did in fact respond to the complaint by filing a motion to dismiss—are
unaffected.

4