IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF MISS BELMAR II FISHING INC., AS OWNER OF THE P/V ROYAL MISS BELMAR FOR EXONERATION FROM, OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY

Filing 121

OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper on 6/14/2013. (eaj, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF
MISS BELMAR II FISHING INC., AS
OWNER OF THE P/V ROYAL MISS
BELMAR FOR EXONERATION FROM, OR
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY

CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-4757 (MLC)
O P I N I O N

THE COURT earlier denied the claimants’ motion to transfer the
action to the United States District Court of the Virgin Islands.
(See dkt. entry no. 115, 5-29-13 Order; dkt. entry no. 114, 5-29-13
Op.; see also dkt. entry no. 87, Transfer Mot.)

The claimants now

move for reconsideration of the 5-29-13 Order, and reiterate their
request that the Court transfer the action to the United States
District Court of the Virgin Islands.

(See dkt. entry no. 118,

Reconsideration Mot.)
IT IS “well settled that a motion for reconsideration . . . is
‘an extremely limited procedural vehicle.’”

Tehan v. Disab. Mgmt.

Servs., Inc., 111 F.Supp.2d 542, 549 (D.N.J. 2000) (citation
omitted).

District courts, which enjoy discretion to grant or deny

motions for reconsideration, grant such motions very sparingly.
See Caver v. City of Trenton, 420 F.3d 243, 258 (3d Cir. 2005);
Cataldo v. Moses, 361 F.Supp.2d 420, 433 (D.N.J. 2004).

A movant

seeking reconsideration must show: (1) an intervening change in
controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was

previously unavailable; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of
law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.

See, e.g., Max’s

Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677
(3d Cir. 1999).
A MOVANT seeking reconsideration may not “relitigate old
matters” or “raise argument or present evidence that could have
been raised prior to the entry of judgment.”

Boretsky v. Governor

of N.J., 433 Fed.Appx. 73, 78 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Wilchombe v.
TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949, 957 (11th Cir. 2009)); Dunkley v.
Mellon Investor Servs., 378 Fed.Appx. 169, 172 (3d Cir. 2010)
(same).

“This prohibition includes new arguments that were

previously available, but not pressed.”

Wilchombe, 555 F.3d at 957

(citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also
Summerfield v. Equifax Info. Servs. LLC, 264 F.R.D. 133, 145
(D.N.J. 2009) (“A motion for reconsideration will [] fail if the
moving party raises argument[s] . . . that could have been raised
. . . before the original decision was reached.”).
RECONSIDERATION is not warranted where the movant merely
recapitulates the cases and arguments previously analyzed by the
court.

Arista Recs., Inc. v. Flea World, Inc., 356 F.Supp.2d 411,

416 (D.N.J. 2005); see also Tehan, 111 F.Supp.2d at 549 (“Motions
for reconsideration will not be granted where a party simply asks
the court to analyze the same facts and cases it had already

2

considered . . . .”).

Similarly, reconsideration is not warranted

where the apparent purpose of the motion is for the movant to
express disagreement with the court’s initial decision.

Tehan, 111

F.Supp.2d at 549.
THE COURT has carefully reviewed the brief that the claimants
have filed in support of the Reconsideration Motion.

The claimants

fail to argue that: (1) there has been an intervening change in
controlling law; (2) new evidence is available that was previously
unavailable; or (3) there exists a need to correct a clear error of
law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.
Seafood Café, 176 F.3d at 677.

But cf. Max’s

The claimants also fail to

demonstrate that the Court earlier committed “a clear error of law
or fact.”

Indeed, the Court stated in the 5-29-13 Opinion that the

claimants “ha[d] failed to direct the Court to any binding
authority stating or suggesting that Supplemental Rule F(9) would
permit transfer of the action to the United States District Court
of the Virgin Islands.”

(5-29-13 Op. at 4.)

That remains the

case, even after consideration of the claimants’ brief in support
of the Reconsideration Motion.

3

THE COURT, for good cause appearing, thus intends to deny the
Reconsideration Motion.

The Court will enter a separate Order.1

s/ Mary L. Cooper
MARY L. COOPER
United States District Judge
Dated:

June 14, 2013

1

The Court here expresses no opinion on the claimants’
response to the 5-29-13 Order, insofar as that Order required all
parties to the action to show cause why the action should not be
transferred “either to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida or to a United States District Court
located in a vicinage within California, Vermont, or West Virginia
where at least one of the individual claimants remaining in this
action resides.” (5-29-13 Order at 1; see dkt. entry no. 119,
Claimants’ Response.)
4