HOLLEY v. PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY et al

Filing 172

MEMORANDUM ORDER that Holley's Motion for Reconsideration (d.e 168 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Brian R. Martinotti on 10/15/2018. (mmh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
____________________________________
:
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
v.
:
:
PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK
:
AND NEW JERSEY, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
____________________________________:
AMANDA HOLLEY,

Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-7534-BRM-DEA

MEMORANDUM ORDER

THIS MATTER is opened to the Court by Amanda Holley’s (“Holley”) Motion for
Reconsideration (ECF No. 168), seeking reconsideration of the October 12, 2018 Memorandum
Opinion and Order (ECF No. 167), which established the elements of, and standard of proof for
establishing, a § 1983 claim for hostile work environment against individuals and employers;
Defendants the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Sergeant Erick Torres (collectively
“Defendants”) oppose the Motion. (ECF No. 169.)
Holley moves for reconsideration on the basis that this Court and other district courts in
this circuit have ignored Andrews v. Philadelphia, 895 F.2d 1469 (3d Cir. 1990) and have
improperly utilized the Title VII hostile work environment framework in the context of
discrimination claims brought under the Equal Protection Clause. Defendants argue Holley “Cites
no manifest error of law or fact nor does she cite to new evidence or new law that would cause this
court to reconsider its ruling.” (ECF No. 169 at 2.)
While not expressly authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, motions for
reconsideration are proper pursuant to this District’s Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) if there are “matters

or controlling decisions which counsel believes the Judge . . . has overlooked.” L.Civ.R. 7.1(i);
Dunn v. Reed Grp., Inc., No. 08–1632, 2010 WL 174861, at *1 (D.N.J. Jan 13, 2010). The
comments to that Rule make clear, however, that “reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy that
is granted ‘very sparingly.’” L.Civ.R. 7.1(i) cmt. 6(d) (quoting Brackett v. Ashcroft, No. 03–3988,
2003 WL 22303078, *2 (D.N.J. Oct. 7, 2003)). In that regard, the Third Circuit has held the scope
of a motion for reconsideration is “extremely limited.” Blystone v. Horn, 664 F.3d 397, 415 (3d
Cir. 2011). “Such motions are not to be used as an opportunity to relitigate the case; rather, they
may be used only to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.”
Id. Accordingly, an order or judgment may only 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 [made
its initial decision]; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest
injustice.” United States ex rel. Schumann v. AstraZeneca Pharms. L.P., 769 F.3d 837, 848–49 (3d
Cir. 2014).
A court commits clear error of law “only if the record cannot support the findings that led
to the ruling.” ABS Brokerage Servs. v. Penson Fin. Servs., Inc., No. 09–4590, 2010 WL 3257992,
at *6 (D.N.J. Aug. 16, 2010) (citing United States v. Grape, 549 F. 3d 591, 603–04 (3d Cir. 2008)).
“Thus, a party must . . . demonstrate that (1) the holdings on which it bases its request were without
support in the record, or (2) would result in ‘manifest injustice’ if not addressed.” Id. In short,
“[m]ere ‘disagreement with the Court’s decision’ does not suffice.” ABS Brokerage Servs., 2010
WL 3257992, at *6 (quoting P. Schoenfeld Asset Mgmt. LLC v. Cendant Corp., 161 F. Supp. 2d
349, 353 (D.N.J. 2001)).

2

Holley’s Motion does not assert: (1) there has been an intervening change in the controlling
law; (2) there is new evidence available that was not available when the Court issued its October
12, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order; or (3) the October 12, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order contains a clear error of law or fact. See United States ex rel. Schumann, 769 F.3d at
848–49. While Holley argues the Court “must have overlooked” Andrews when rendering its
opinion, the Court reviewed and cited to Andrews on multiple occasions throughout its
Memorandum Opinion and Order. (See ECF No. 167.) In fact, Holley concedes the Court “did
rely upon Andrews for other parts of its opinion.” (ECF No. 168 at 1 n.1.) “It is improper on a
motion for reconsideration to ask the Court to rethink what it has already thought through, whether
rightly or wrongly.” S.C. ex rel. C.C. v. Deptford Tp. Bd. of Educ., 248 F. Supp. 2d 368, 381
(D.N.J. 2003) (citation omitted).
In essence, Holley merely disagrees with the Court’s previous decision and is attempting
to relitigate the issues previously decided in the October 12, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and
Order. This is not a valid basis for a motion for reconsideration. See Blystone, 664 F.3d at 415
(expressly forbidding the use of a motion for reconsideration to relitigate a motion).
Having reviewed her motion and having declined to hold oral argument pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b), for the reasons set forth and for good cause shown,
IT IS on this 15th day of October 2018,
ORDERED that Holley’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
/s/ Brian R. Martinotti__________
HON. BRIAN R. MARTINOTTI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3