EBERT et al v. TOWNSHIP OF HAMILTON et al

Filing 130

OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Anne E. Thompson on 11/05/2019. (jdb)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

LAWRENCE B. EBERT and REBECCA A.
VARES-EBERT,
Civ. No. 15-7331
Plaintiffs,
v.
OPINION
TOWNSHIP OF HAMILTON et al.,
Defendants.
THOMPSON, U.S.D.J.
INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the Court on a Motion for Clarification brought by Plaintiffs
Lawrence B. Ebert and Rebecca A. Vares-Ebert (collectively, “Plaintiffs”). (ECF No. 120.) The
Motion seeks clarification with regards to the notice of the Status Conference held on September
26, 2019 and the decisions made by the Court during and after that Status Conference. Defendant
Township of Hamilton (“Defendant”) opposes. (ECF No. 123.) The Court has decided the
Motion after considering the parties’ written submissions without oral argument pursuant to
Local Civil Rule 78.1(b). For the following reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Clarification is
denied.
BACKGROUND
The Court assumes the parties’ familiarity with the facts of this case and only recites facts
relevant to this Opinion. On July 12, 2019, both parties filed their respective motions in limine
with this Court. (ECF Nos. 106, 109.) Both parties filed timely opposition briefs. (ECF Nos. 111,
112.) On September 12, 2019 the in-person Status Conference set for September 20, 2019 was
1

rescheduled for September 26, 2019 after a request from Defendant’s attorney. (ECF No. 117.)
The Court mailed notice of this change of date to Plaintiffs’ home address. The Status
Conference was held on September 26, 2019 with both parties in attendance. At the Status
Conference, the Court denied two of Plaintiffs’ motions in limine and reserved ruling on the
remainder of the motions. The Court issued these rulings in its Order dated October 3, 2019
(“October 3rd Order”). (ECF No. 122.) The Court later granted in part and denied in part
Defendant’s motion in limine on October 15, 2019 (“October 15th Order”). (ECF No. 125.)
On September 27, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the present Motion Requesting Clarification of
Comments/Decisions Made in the Status Conference of September 26, 2019 (“Motion for
Clarification”). (ECF No. 120.) Plaintiffs first claim that they did not receive proper notice of the
Status Conference and request “clarification as to the obligation of non-ECF users to monitor the
docket.” (Mot. at 2–5, ECF No. 120.) Plaintiffs also seek clarification as to whether the cases
cited in Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendant’s motion in limine, (ECF No. 111,) were considered
by the Court. (Mot. at 5–6.) The remainder of the Motion largely restates Plaintiffs’ arguments
contained in their opposition to Defendant’s motion in limine. (Id. at 6–11.) Defendant filed an
Opposition to the Motion for Clarification on October 8, 2019, arguing that the Court should
treat Plaintiffs’ Motion as a request for reconsideration, and that Plaintiffs have failed to meet the
stringent requirements for reconsideration. (ECF No. 124.) Plaintiffs filed a Reply on October
15, 2019. (ECF No. 126.) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Clarification is now before the Court.
LEGAL STANDARD
“The general purpose of a motion for clarification is to explain or clarify something
ambiguous or vague, not to alter or amend.” Lynch v. Tropicana Prods., Inc., 2013 WL 4804528,
at *1 (D.N.J. Sept. 9, 2013) (internal citations omitted); see also, e.g., Engers v. AT&T Corp.,

2

2006 WL 3359722, at *5 (D.N.J. Nov. 20, 2006) (granting motion for clarification where “[t]he
Court neglected to specify [in its order] that Count Six was dismissed with prejudice,” but the
text of the Court’s opinion stated “that such dismissal was with prejudice”).
In comparison, motions for reconsideration are intended “to correct manifest errors of
law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906,
909 (3d Cir. 1985). “Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy that is granted very sparingly.”
Brackett v. Ashcroft, 2003 WL 22303078, at *2 (D.N.J. Oct. 7, 2003) (internal citations omitted);
see also L. Civ. R. 7.1(i), cmt. 6(d). Pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and Rule 7.1(i) of the Local Civil Rules, a motion for reconsideration must be based
on one of three grounds: (1) an intervening change in controlling law, (2) new evidence not
previously available, or (3) the need to correct clear error of law or manifest injustice. N. River
Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995) (internal citations
omitted). A motion for reconsideration, however, “is not warranted . . . where (1) the movant
simply repeats the cases and arguments previously analyzed by the court, or (2) the movant has
filed the motion merely to disagree with or relitigate the court’s initial decision.” Hanover
Architectural Serv., P.A. v. Christian Testimony-Morris, N.P., 2015 WL4461327, at *3 (D.N.J.
July 21, 2015) (internal citations omitted). Rather, a motion for reconsideration may be granted
only if there is a dispositive factual or legal matter that was presented but not considered that
would have reasonably resulted in a different conclusion by the court. White v. City of Trenton,
848 F. Supp. 2d 497, 500 (D.N.J. 2012).
DISCUSSION
There are two discernable requests for clarification within Plaintiffs’ Motion: (1)
clarification “as to the obligation of non-ECF users to monitor the docket,” (Mot. at 3,) and (2)

3

clarification “as to whether the cases cited in [Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendant’s motion in
limine] have been considered.” (Id. at 6). Defendant argues that these requests for clarification
are better characterized as motions for reconsideration. (Opp’n at 2–3, ECF No. 123.) Although
Plaintiffs contest this characterization, their Reply seems to concede that they are seeking a
modification of the Court’s rulings. (Reply at 8–10, ECF No. 126 (noting that “a trial court is
free to reconsider and reverse its decision for any reason it deems sufficient”).) The Court will
therefore analyze Plaintiffs’ Motion as both a request for clarification and a request for
modification.
I.

Requests for Clarification
Plaintiffs first seek clarification as to the responsibility of non-ECF users to monitor the

docket. (Mot. at 3.) Considering Plaintiffs have successfully been receiving notices from the
Court regarding activity on the docket via mail for the past four years, this request for
clarification seems disingenuous, and instead seems to be a means for seeking reconsideration.
The Court does not find any ambiguity in Plaintiffs’ responsibilities for monitoring the docket
but will still restate them here: notice to non-ECF users is sent via mail to the party’s last known
address. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 5(b)(2)(C), 77(d). The Court has sent these notices to Plaintiffs at
390 Garretson Road, Bridgewater, NJ 08807 throughout this case.
Plaintiffs next seek clarification as to whether the Court considered the cases cited in
Plaintiffs’ opposition brief in ruling on Defendant’s motion in limine regarding valuation of
damages. (Mot. at 5–6.) Since the Court did not rule on Defendant’s motion in limine until
October 15, 2019, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Clarification filed on September 27, 2019 was
premature. Regardless, as the Court stated in its October 15th Order, this Court “considered the
papers submitted in support of and in opposition to” the Motion. (ECF No. 125.)

4

For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Clarification is denied.
II.

Requests for Reconsideration
Defendant contends that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Clarification is actually a disguised

motion for reconsideration, since the relief sought is not for a clarification of ambiguity, but
rather a modification of this Court’s October 3rd Order and October 15th Order. (See Opp’n at
2–3.) Although Plaintiffs object to this, they then supply the Court with arguments in favor of
modification of prior court orders. (See Reply at 7–10.) To the extent that Plaintiffs’ Motion can
be considered a request for reconsideration of those Orders, any request for reconsideration was
premature when filed. Under the Local Rules, a motion for reconsideration must “be served and
filed within 14 days after the entry of the order or judgment on the original motion.” L. Civ. R.
7.1(i) (emphasis added). Plaintiffs filed the Motion at hand on September 27, 2019, several days
before the Court entered its October 3rd Order and weeks before the Court entered its October
15th Order. 1
Even if the Motion was timely, Plaintiffs fail to meet the stringent requirements for
granting reconsideration. Plaintiff’s first request for clarification regarding notice of the Status
Conference appears to seek reconsideration of the Court’s denial of two of Plaintiffs’ motions in
limine. (See Reply at 7–10.) However, Plaintiffs have made no showing that, had they received
proper notice, the outcome at the Status Conference would have been different. Plaintiffs had
already submitted their arguments for the motions in limine in their brief, (ECF No. 109,) and
have failed to show any “clear error of law” in the Court’s decision, see River Ins. Co., 52 F.3d at
1

The “‘entered-on-docket’ date[ ] is the legally operative date from which a party must take
some action from the entry of an order.” Nat’l Sav. Bank of Albany v. Jefferson Bank, 127 F.R.D.
218, 222 (S.D. Fla. 1989); See also U.S. v. Schiavo, 504 F.2d 1, 8 n. 17 (3d Cir. 1974) (“a
judgment, to be effective, must both be on a separate document . . . and be docketed as provided
in [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 79(a).”). The October 3rd Order was entered on the docket on October 4,
2019. The October 15th Order was entered on the docket on October 15, 2019.
5

1218, or any dispositive factual or legal matter that was presented but not considered, see City of
Trenton, 848 F. Supp. 2d at 500.
Second, Plaintiffs’ request for clarification as to whether the Court considered the case
law cited in their opposition brief to Defendant’s motion in limine appears to be a request for
reconsideration of the October 15th Order. (Mot. at 5–10; Reply at 3–5 (citing case law Plaintiffs
believe the Court overlooked.) As stated above, this request is premature. Furthermore,
Plaintiffs’ Motion merely repeats cases and arguments previously analyzed by the Court and fails
to provide new evidence or demonstrate clear error of law. (See Mot. at 5–11 (reiterating case
law from ECF No. 111); Reply at 3–5 (same).) For these reasons, any reconsideration that
Plaintiffs might have sought would be denied.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs Motion for Clarification is denied. An appropriate
Order will follow.

Date: November 5, 2019

/s/ Anne E. Thompson
ANNE E. THOMPSON, U.S.D.J.

6