JAFFAL v. THOMPSON et al
Filing
56
OPINION and ORDER denying 50 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. etc. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 11/30/2020. (dam)
Case 2:18-cv-05237-SRC-CLW Document 56 Filed 11/30/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 667
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
IMAD JAFFAL,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN THOMPSON et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil Action No. 18-5237 (SRC)
OPINION & ORDER
CHESLER, U.S.D.J.
This matter comes before the Court on the motion for reconsideration by Plaintiff Imad
Jaffal of this Court’s Order dated October 15, 2020, which granted the motion for summary
judgment by Defendants John Kelly, Lori Scialabba, Jeff Sessions, and John Thompson
(collectively, the “Government”). For the reasons that follow, the motion will be denied.
“[A] judgment may be altered or amended if the party seeking reconsideration shows at
least one of the following grounds: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the
availability of new evidence that was not available when the court granted the motion for
summary judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest
injustice.” In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., 904 F.3d 298, 311 (3d Cir. 2018); L. CIV. R.
7.1(i).
In moving for reconsideration, Plaintiff has submitted a brief that acknowledges the Third
Circuit standard for a motion for reconsideration only in the final concluding sentence. The rest
1
Case 2:18-cv-05237-SRC-CLW Document 56 Filed 11/30/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 668
of the brief contains new arguments, arguments not presented to this Court in Plaintiff’s
opposition brief to the Government’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s reconsideration
brief presents no arguments to support the conclusion that the Third Circuit standard for a motion
for reconsideration has been met.
The result is that this Court has before it a request to get a second bite at the apple –
which is not a basis for reconsideration. For example, Plaintiff’s new arguments rely greatly on
the proposition that the Third Circuit recognizes “forms of legal separation other than judicial
orders, depending on the context, where a judicial imprimatur is not required.” (Pl.’s Br. at 3.)
The key question at this juncture is: did Plaintiff make this argument in his opposition to the
motion for summary judgment? Plaintiff did not. Rather, Plaintiff previously argued that he
met the statutory legal separation requirement based on the formal judicial recognition
documented in the Jordanian Divorce. Plaintiff’s previous opposition brief contained one
sentence that might conceivably give a hint of his new argument: “Courts have also said that a
Court order may not be necessary.” (Pl.’s MSJ Opp. Br. at 15.) Plaintiff’s opposition brief
offered no supporting legal authority – which courts? – and did not further develop the point.
Instead, Plaintiff’s arguments that followed that statement relied on the reasoning that, in the
words of the brief’s subheading: “THE DIVORCE ENTERED BY THE SHARIA COURT
MUST BE RECOGNIZED AS A LEGAL SEPARATION FOR PURPOSES OF 8 U.S.C. §
1432(a).” (Pl.’s MSJ Opp. Br. at 18.) This Court found Plaintiff’s arguments unpersuasive, for
the reasons explained in the Opinion, dated October 15, 2020, which found that the Government
was entitled to Judgment as a matter of law.
In Sarpolis v. Tereshko, 625 F. App’x 594, 599 (3d Cir. 2016), the Third Circuit
2
Case 2:18-cv-05237-SRC-CLW Document 56 Filed 11/30/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 669
referenced “the well-settled rule that reconsideration is improper when a party should have raised
an argument earlier.” Such is the case here. Had Plaintiff raised these arguments at the proper
time, this Court would have considered them; now is too late. Plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration will be denied.
For the reasons stated above,
IT IS on this 30th day of November, 2020
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Docket Entry No. 50) is
DENIED.
s/ Stanley R. Chesler
STANLEY R. CHESLER, U.S.D.J.
3
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?