NY MACHINERY INC. et al v. THE KOREAN CLEANERS MONTHLY et al

Filing 40

LETTER OPINION, Signed by Judge Susan D. Wigenton on 1/14/2019. (JB,)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CHAMBERS OF

MARTIN LUTHER KING COURTHOUSE
50 WALNUT ST.
NEWARK, NJ 07101
973-645-5903

SUSAN D. WIGENTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

January 14, 2019

Gene Y. Kang, Esq.
Nancy Ann Del Pizzo, Esq.
Rivkin Radler, LLP
21 Main Street, Suite 158
Court Plaza South, West Wing
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Jay J. Rice, Esq.
Bradley Lewis Rice, Esq.
Nagel Rice, LLP
103 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 201
Roseland, NJ 07068
Attorneys for Defendants

LETTER OPINION FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT
Re:

NY Machinery Inc. v. The Korean Cleaners Monthly
Civil Action No. 17-12269 (SDW) (LDW)

Counsel:
Before this Court is Defendants The Korean Cleaners Monthly’s (“KCM”) and John
Chung’s (“Chung”) (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s
November 20, 2018 Letter Opinion and Order dismissing Defendants’ Counterclaim. (ECF Nos.
30-3 1.)
This Court having considered the parties’ submissions and having reached its decision
without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78, and for the reasons
discussed below, denies Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration.
DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Civil Rule 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.” L. CIV. R. 7.1(i). 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 & Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999).
.

.

B. The November 20, 2018 Letter Order Was Not Clearly Erroneous or Contrary to Law
This Court’s November 20, 2018 Letter Opinion clearly identified and applied the proper
legal standards for a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Defendants argue that dismissal of their Counterclaim constitutes a clear error of law and
manifest injustice. (Defs.’ Moving Br. at 4, ECF No. 32-1.) However, Defendants fail to
demonstrate the existence of an error of fact or law that, if left uncorrected, would result in
manifest injustice. It is well established that a litigant’s disagreement with the court is not
sufficient to warrant reconsideration. US. i’. Compaction Sys. Coip., 88 F. Supp. 2d 339, 345
(D.N.J. 1999).
This Court finds no basis to reconsider its prior findings. Plaintiff merely reasserts the
same arguments previously raised with citations to the same previously relied upon cases, except
a 2003 matter which could have been submitted initially.
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s November 20, 2018
Letter Order is DENIED.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above,
IT IS on this l4t1 day of January, 2019,
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s November 20,
2018 Letter Order is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
s/ Susan D. Wigen ton
SUSAN D. WIGENTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Orig:
cc:

Clerk
Leda D. Wettre, U.S.M.J.
Parties

2