BUTA v. BERGEN COUNTY / CITY OF HACKENSACK et al
Filing
53
OPINION. Signed by Judge Esther Salas on 6/22/2022. (jd, )
Case 2:17-cv-07754-ES-MAH Document 53 Filed 06/22/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 416
Not for Publication
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
SISA BUTU,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No.: 17-7754 (ES) (MAH)
OPINION
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, et al.,
Defendants.
SALAS, DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Sisa Butu’s motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 59(e) challenging the Court’s August 18, 2021
Opinion and Order (D.E. Nos. 40 & 41). (D.E. Nos. 45 (“Motion”) & 45-2 (“Mov. Br.”)).1
Defendants oppose the Motion. (D.E. Nos. 46, 47 & 48). The Court has considered the parties’
submissions and decides the matter without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); L. Civ. R.
78.1(b). For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES the Motion.
I.
BACKGROUND
The Court summarizes the relevant procedural history and incorporates the recitation of
facts as stated in its September 30, 2019 Opinion. (See D.E. No. 13). This case arises out of a
The Motion is styled as a “Motion to Appeal for Reconsideration/Remand.” (See D.E. No. 45). The Motion
is untimely under Local Civil Rule 7.1(i), under which a party may file a motion for reconsideration within 14 days
of entry of the original order or judgment. However, under Rule 59(e), a party may move to “alter or amend a
judgment . . . no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Moreover, under Rule 60(b), a party may move
to “relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” for certain enumerated reasons within “a reasonable
time” after the entry of the judgment. As between Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b), the distinction typically turns on whether
the motion is filed within the time specified by Rule 59(e). See New Castle Count v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co.,
933 F.2d 1162, 1176 (3d Cir. 1991). Plaintiff filed the Motion within 28 days of the entry of the Court’s Order
dismissing his claims and is therefore timely under Rule 59(e). Accordingly, the Court construes the Motion as
brought pursuant to Rule 59(e).
1
Case 2:17-cv-07754-ES-MAH Document 53 Filed 06/22/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 417
false imprisonment and malicious prosecution action brought by Plaintiff in October 2017 against
defendants County of Bergen and the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office. (D.E. No. 1). On
December 18, 2018, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint against the City of Englewood,
Englewood Police Department, Desmond Singh, and Timothy Torell (collectively, the
“Englewood Defendants”). (D.E. No. 10). On October 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended
Complaint, renaming the County of Bergen and Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office as defendants
in addition to the Englewood Defendants. (D.E. No. 15).
On October 19, 2020, the Englewood Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings, which Plaintiff opposed. (D.E. Nos. 27 & 32). On July 16, 2021, the County of Bergen
filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. (D.E. No. 37). On July 29, 2021, the
Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office also filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.
(D.E. No. 39). Both motions were unopposed. On August 18, 2021, the Court considered all three
of Defendants’ motions collectively and dismissed the Second Amended Complaint. (D.E. Nos.
40 & 41). On September 13, 2021, or 26 days later, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion. (D.E. No.
45). On September 14, 2021, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the August 18, 2021 Opinion and
Order. (D.E. No. 43).
On December 2, 2021, the Third Circuit dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal for failure to pay the
requisite fee. (See D.E. No. 49). Although Plaintiff has since paid the fee, as of the date of this
Opinion, the Third Circuit has not reopened the appeal.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Pursuant to Rule 59(e), “[a] motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than
28 days after the entry of the judgment.” See Pellicano v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Ass’n, 540 F.
App’x 95, 97 (3d Cir. 2013). Relief should be granted “sparingly” under Rule 59(e) because
2
Case 2:17-cv-07754-ES-MAH Document 53 Filed 06/22/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 418
“reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy.” NL Indus., Inc. v.
Commercial Union Ins. Co., 935 F. Supp. 513, 516 (D.N.J. 1996).
“A proper Rule 59(e) motion . . . must rely on one of three grounds: (1) an intervening
change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error
of law or prevent manifest injustice.” Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010)
(citing N. River Ins. Co. v. Cigna Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)); see also
Pellicano, 540 F. App’x at 98.
III.
DISCUSSION
As a preliminary matter, Defendants contend that this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider
Plaintiff’s motion because Plaintiff has appealed the dismissal of his claims to the Third Circuit.
(See D.E. Nos. 46–47). “As a general rule, the timely filing of a notice of appeal is an event of
jurisdictional significance, immediately conferring jurisdiction on a Court of Appeals and
divesting a district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Venen
v. Sweet, 758 F.2d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 1985). Nonetheless, a district court retains jurisdiction to
decide a timely motion under Rule 59(e). See id. at 122; see also United States v. Rogers Transp.,
Inc., 751 F.2d 635, 635, 637 (3d Cir. 1985). Thus, the Court retains jurisdiction to consider the
Motion.2
Plaintiff’s Motion is premised on the alleged availability of newly discovered evidence.
(Mov. Br. ¶ 7). Plaintiff vaguely asserts that new evidence has become available to support his
Moreover, as previously noted, the Third Circuit dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal for failure to pay the requisite
fees. (See D.E. No. 49). Although Plaintiff has since paid the fees, it appears that the Third Circuit has not reopened
the matter.
2
Finally, even if the Third Circuit reopens Plaintiff’s appeal, this Court retains jurisdiction because it has not
dismissed the Englewood Defendants’ crossclaims for contribution and indemnification against the other defendants.
See Waldorf v. Shuta, 142 F.3d 601, 611 (3d Cir. 1998). So that Plaintiff may proceed with his appeal, the Court
dismisses the crossclaims as moot.
3
Case 2:17-cv-07754-ES-MAH Document 53 Filed 06/22/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 419
claims that the Englewood Defendants violated his civil rights, yet he does not submit any evidence
he wishes the Court to consider. (See id.). Moreover, none of the allegedly new evidence
addresses the deficiencies set forth in the August 18, 2021 Opinion dismissing his claims against
the Englewood Defendants as time-barred. (See D.E. No. 40 at 6–9). Specifically, Plaintiff fails
to demonstrate that the newly discovered evidence shows that his claims against the Englewood
Defendants relate back to the claims he raised in the original complaint. (See id.). Further, “‘new
evidence,’ for reconsideration purposes, does not refer to evidence that a party . . . submits to the
court after an adverse ruling. Rather, new evidence in this context means evidence that a party
could not earlier submit to the court because that evidence was not previously available.” Blystone
v. Horn, 664 F.3d 397, 415–16 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Howard Hess Dental Lab’ys Inc. v.
Dentsply Int’l, Inc., 602 F.3d 237, 252 (3d Cir. 2010)). Nothing before the Court suggests that the
evidence Plaintiff seeks to present was unavailable to him when he filed his opposition to the
Englewood Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to meet
the standard to alter or amend judgment. See id. at 415.
Plaintiff also argues that the Court should grant the Motion because he was not provided
an opportunity for oral argument. (See Mov. Br. ¶¶ 3–8). It is true that a litigant has the right to
be heard. Berger v. Hahnemann Univ. Hosp., 765 F. App’x 699, 703 (3d Cir. 2019). However,
that right is satisfied “where the plaintiff receives the ‘opportunity to present legal arguments either
orally, in writing, or both at the District Court’s discretion.’” Id. (quoting Dougherty v. Harper’s
Mag. Co., 537 F.2d 758, 761 (3d Cir. 1976)). Here, Plaintiff had an opportunity to be heard
through his extensive briefing, which the Court carefully considered. Therefore, denying his
claims without oral argument was not manifestly unjust. See id.
4
Case 2:17-cv-07754-ES-MAH Document 53 Filed 06/22/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 420
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is DENIED.
An appropriate Order
accompanies this Opinion.
Dated: June 22, 2022,
s/Esther Salas__
Esther Salas, U.S.D.J.
5
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?