OMODUNBI v. GORDIN AND BERGER, P.C. et al

Filing 251

OPINION & ORDER administratively terminating 220 Defendants' motion; denying 222 Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration; denying 223 Defendants' motion for reconsideration; denying 231 Defendants' amended motion for reconsideration; denying 234 Defendants' cross motion; administratively terminating as moot 237 Defendants' motion for leave to file a sur reply. Signed by Judge Jamel K. Semper on 11/26/2024. (dam)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
OLU OMODUNBI,

Civil Action No. 17-7553 (JKS) (JSA)

Plaintiff,
v.

OPINION & ORDER

GORDIN & BERGER, P.C., EDWARD
BERGER, AND DANIEL BERGER,

November 26, 2024

Defendants.
SEMPER, District Judge.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon several motions: (1) Plaintiff Olu
Omodunbi’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for reconsideration (ECF 222) of this Court’s June 27, 2024
Order 1 granting in part and denying in part Defendants Gordin and Berger, P.C., Edward Berger,
and Daniel Berger’s (“Defendants”) motion for summary judgment and granting in part and
denying in part Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment; (2) Defendants motion for
reconsideration (ECF 223) of this Court’s June 27, 2024 Opinion 2 and Order 3 granting in part and
denying in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and granting in part and denying in
part Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment; (3) Defendants’ “Amended Motion for
Reconsideration” of this Court’s Opinion and Order 4 denying Defendants’ appeal of Judge Allen’s
order (ECF 231); and (4) Defendants’ “cross motion to vacate the June 27, 2024 summary

(ECF 219.)
(ECF 218.)
3
(ECF 219.)
4
(ECF 217.)
1
2

judgment order and consolidate and transfer the action to Eastern District of Pennsylvania[.]” (ECF
234.) The Court reviewed the parties’ submissions and decided the motions without oral argument
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78 and Local Civil Rule 78.1. For the reasons set forth
below, each motion is DENIED.
WHEREAS a party moving for reconsideration of an order of this Court must file its
motion within fourteen (14) days after the entry of that order and set “forth concisely the matter or
controlling decisions which the party believes the . . . Judge has overlooked.” L. Civ. R. 7.1(i).
Motions for reconsideration are “extremely limited procedural vehicle(s)” that are to be granted
“very sparingly.” Clark v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 940 F. Supp. 2d 186, 189 (D.N.J. 2013)
(quotation marks omitted). 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, *2-3 (D.N.J. July 30,
2015); see also Florham Park Chevron, Inc. v. Chevron U.S.A., 680 F. Supp. 159, 162 (D.N.J.
1988). A motion for reconsideration may only be granted if 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.” Blystone v. Horn, 664 F.3d 397, 415 (3d Cir. 2011)
(quotation marks and italics omitted). Such a motion is “not a vehicle for a litigant to raise new
arguments.” CPS Medmanagement LLC v. Bergen Reg'l Med. Ctr., L.P., 940 F. Supp. 2d 141, 168
(D.N.J. 2013); see Bowers v. NCAA, 130 F. Supp. 2d 610, 613 (D.N.J. 2001) (explaining a motion
for reconsideration is not an opportunity to raise matters that could have been raised before the
original decision was reached); and

2

WHEREAS Plaintiff and Defendants fail to identify any intervening change in the relevant
law, new evidence that was unavailable at the time this Court entered its Order, or an error of fact
or law that, if left uncorrected, would result in manifest injustice; therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration (ECF 222) is hereby DENIED; Defendants’ motion for reconsideration (ECF 223)
is hereby DENIED; and Defendants’ amended motion for reconsideration (ECF 231) is hereby
DENIED; and
WHEREAS through an apparent “cross motion” to Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration,
Defendants appear to seek to transfer this case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. (ECF 234.)
However, this cross motion is not related to the subject matter of the original motion filed by
Plaintiff and accordingly fails to comply with Local Rule 7.1(h). This motion is DENIED as
improper; 5 and
IT IS on this 26th day of November 2024,
ORDERED that

Defendants’ motion

(ECF

220) is

ADMINISTRATIVELY

TERMINATED as Defendants withdrew the motion; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF 222) is DENIED; and it is
further
ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for reconsideration (ECF 223) is DENIED; and it is
further
ORDERED that Defendants’ amended motion for reconsideration (ECF 231) is DENIED;
and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants’ cross motion (ECF 234) is DENIED; and it is further

The parties do not contest that venue is proper in this District. Furthermore, on May 10, 2024, District Judge
Gerald J. Pappert stayed Gordin & Berger, P.C. et al. v. Omodunbi et al., (2:23-cv-02232-GJP) before him in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania pending the outcome of the matter currently before this Court. (See Docket No. 2:23cv-02232-GJP, ECF 40 “Stay Order.”)
5

3

ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for leave to file a sur reply (ECF 237) is
ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATED as MOOT.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Jamel K. Semper
.
HON. JAMEL K. SEMPER
United States District Judge

Orig: Clerk
cc:
Jessica S. Allen, U.S.M.J.
Parties

4