ARGEN et al v. KESSLER et al

Filing 144

WHEREAS OPINION. Signed by Judge Susan D. Wigenton on 7/31/2023. (dam)

Case 2:18-cv-00963-SDW-LDW Document 144 Filed 07/31/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 4987

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

PAUL ARGEN and SURENDER
MALHAN,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civil Action No. 18-963 (SDW)(LDW)
WHEREAS OPINION
July 31, 2023

DAVID KATZ,
Defendant.

THIS MATTER having come before this Court upon Plaintiff Paul Argen’s (“Plaintiff”)
Motion for Reconsideration, (D.E. 130), filed in connection with this Court’s June 5, 2023 Opinion
and Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and granting Defendant’s Motion
for Summary Judgment, (D.E. 128; D.E. 129);
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 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

Case 2:18-cv-00963-SDW-LDW Document 144 Filed 07/31/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 4988

new arguments.” CPS MedManagement LLC v. Bergen Reg’l Med. Ctr., L.P., 940 F. Supp. 2d
141, 168 (D.N.J. 2013); and
WHEREAS Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration fails to identify any intervening
change in the relevant law, new evidence that was unavailable at the time this Court entered its
Opinion and Order, or an error of fact or law that, if left uncorrected, would result in manifest
injustice; therefore,
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED. An appropriate order follows.

/s/ Susan D. Wigenton
SUSAN D. WIGENTON, U.S.D.J.
Orig: Clerk
cc:
Leda D. Wettre, U.S.M.J.
Parties

2