PODURGIEL v. ACME MARKETS INC.

Filing 64

MEMORANDUM and ORDER denying 61 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Peter G. Sheridan on 7/16/2018. (km)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

)
Civil Action No:
I 6-cv-02262 (PGS)(TJB)

GREGORY PODURGIEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

ACME MARKETS, INC.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND
ORDER

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

This matter comes before the Court on a motion for reconsideration brought by Defendant
Acme Markets, Inc. [ECF No 61] in reference to this Court’s ruling on the motion for summary
judgment issued on May 21, 2018 (ECF No. 60). Specifically, Defendant seeks the Court’s
reconsideration of the ruling with regard to Count I, which was the only Count that survived the
motion for summary judgment.
The facts relevant to this matter have been set forth in the Court’s previous opinion and
will not be repeated herein.
I.
Motions for reconsideration are governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and L. Civ. R. 7.1(i).
The “extraordinary remedy” of reconsideration is “to be granted sparingly.” A.K Stamping Co.,
Inc., v. Instrument Specialties Co., Inc., 106 F. Supp. 2d 627, 662 (D.N.J. 2000) (quoting NL
Indus., Inc., v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 935 F. Supp. 513, 516 (D.N.J. 1996)). The Rule “does
not contemplate a Court looking to matters which were not originally presented.” Damiano v. Sony

Music Entertainment, Inc., 975 F. Supp. 623, 634 (D.N.J. 1996) (quoting Florham Park Chevron,
Inc., v. Chevron USA., Inc., 680 F. Supp. 159, 162 (D.N.J. 1988)).
The Third Circuit has held that the “purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Harsco Corp.

V.

Ziotnicki,

779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171(1986). “Reconsideration motions,
however, may not be used to relitigate old matters, nor to raise arguments or present evidence that
could have been raised prior to the entry ofjudgment.” NL Indus., Inc., 935 F. Supp. at 516; See
Wright, Miller & Kane, Fed. Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d

§ 2810.1.

Such motions will only

be granted where (1) an intervening change in the law has occurred, (2) new evidence not
previously available has emerged, or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent a
manifest injustice arises. See, North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194,
1218 (3d Cir. 1995). Because reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary
remedy, requests pursuant to these rules are to be granted “sparingly,” Maldonado v. Lucca, 636
F. Supp. 621, 630 (D.N.J. 1986); and only when “dispositive factual matters or controlling
decisions of law” were brought to the Court’s attention but not considered. Peiham v. United
States, 661 F. Supp. 1063, 1065 (D.N.J. 1987). See G-69 v. Degnan, 748 F. Supp. 274,275 (D.N.J.
1990).
II.
Defendants aver that the Court erred when it found Acme is a successor in interest of A&P,
which Defendants argue was contrary to the findings of the Bankruptcy Court.
Defendant points to a sentence in this Court’s opinion (ECF No. 60) stating, “Acme argues
that Mr. Podurgiel’s claim did not arise until November 9 or November 16, 2015 when he was
denied the right to resume work, so the prior bankruptcy court finding was not an issue at that

time.”

The Court reviewed the sentence and recognizes that an inadvertent typographical error

occurred. The word “finding” should have been “filing.” In the interest of clarity, the timeline of
events is as follows: on July 19, 2015 the bankruptcy proceedings were filed, Plaintiff’s claim
arose on or about November 9, or 16, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order on January 22,
2016.
Defendant also argues that the opinion contained an error of law.

In determining the

standard for successor liability, the Court used the standard under the FMLA. Defendant contends
that the bankruptcy standard should apply. In re TWA, 322 F.3d 283, fn 4(3d Cir. 2003). The
Court disagrees. See, Cobb v. Contract Transp., 452 F.3d 543, 551

(6th

Cir. 2006).

In short, the Court understands that the Bankruptcy Court held that Acme had no liability.
However, in resolving the questions of successor in interest in this matter, the Court’s decision is
consistent with the case law as applied to FMLA cases.
Thus, after reviewing Defendant’s arguments, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

ORDER

THIS MATTER having been opened to the Court by Defendant’s motion for
reconsideration (ECF No. 61); and the Court having fully considered the submissions in support
thereof, and any opposition thereto; and having considered the arguments of counsel; and for good
cause shown;
IT IS on this 16th day of July, 2018,
ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 61) is DENIED.

PETER G. SHERIDAN, U.S.D.J.