ALWANI KUMAR v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, INC. et al

Filing 75

MEMORANDUM ORDER that Plaintiff's 66 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. Signed by Judge Michael A. Shipp on 1/7/2015. (jjc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

AL W ANI KUMAR,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 12-779 (MAS) (DEA)
v.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
JOHNSON & JOHNSON, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff Alwani Kumar's ("Plaintiff') motion for
reconsideration, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1, of the Court's October 31, 2014 Opinion and
Order (ECF Nos. 62, 63) granting in part and denying in part Defendants Johnson & Johnson, Inc.,
Ethicon, Inc., and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Products, Inc.'s (collectively "Defendants")
motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 66.) Defendants filed opposition to the motion. (ECF
No. 72.) The Court has carefully considered the parties' submissions and decided the matter
without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 78.1.
Reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 7 .1 is an extraordinary remedy that is rarely
granted. Interfaith Cmty. Org. v. Honeywell Int'!, Inc., 215 F. Supp. 2d 482, 507 (D.N.J. 2002).
A motion for reconsideration may be based on one of three separate grounds: (1) an intervening
change in controlling law; (2) new evidence not previously available; or (3) to correct a clear error
of law or to prevent manifest injustice. See id. A motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity
to raise new matters or arguments that could have been raised before the original decision was
made. See Bowers v. NCAA, 130 F. Supp. 2d 610, 612-13 (D.N.J. 2001). Nor is a motion for
reconsideration an opportunity to ask the Court to rethink what it has already thought through. See

Interfaith Cmty. Org., 215 F. Supp. 2d at 507. "Rather, the rule permits a reconsideration only

when 'dispositive factual matters or controlling decisions of law' were presented to the court but
were overlooked." Id. (quoting Resorts Int'! v. Greate Bay Hotel and Casino, 830 F. Supp. 826,
831(D.N.J.1992)).
Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of three portions of this Court's October 31, 2014
decision, granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion for summary judgment:
(1) "dismissing ... Kumar's demotion claim as untimely"; (2) "ruling that the lowering of Kumar's
Succession Planning Score for 2010, reducing her bonus for 2010 and denying Plaintiff temporary
employment in June of 2011, could not ... be considered retaliation as [it] relates to Kumar's
FMLA leave"; and (3) "dismissing Kumar's constructive discharge claim as it relates to her FMLA
cause of action." (Pl.'s Br. 1, ECF No. 66-1.)
A motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity to raise new matters or arguments that
could have been raised before the original decision was made. Here, Plaintiff is merely asking this
Court to rethink what it has already thought through. Plaintiff has failed to proffer any change in
law, unconsidered evidence, or persuasive argument that the Court has committed a clear error of
law that requires correction.
For the reasons set forth above, and other good cause shown,
IT IS on this 7th day of January, 2015, ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for
reconsideration (ECF No. 66) is DENIED.

2