WALSH v. WALSH et al

Filing 32

MEMORANDUM OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Michael A. Shipp on 8/25/2017. (km)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

RECEIVED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

AUG 25 2017
AT 8:30
WILLIAM T. WALSH
CLERK

JAMES WALSH,

M

Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 16-4242 (MAS) (TJB)
v.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
KERRY WALSH, et al.,
Defendants.

SHIPP, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court ort Plaintiff Jam es Wal sh' s ("Plaintiff') Motion for
Reconsideration. (ECF No. 24.) Defendants Kerry Walsh (ECF No. 25), JefHenninger (ECF No.
29), and Judge John M. Doran (ECF No. 27) (collectively "Defendants") filed opposition, and
Plaintiff replied (ECF No. 30). 1 The Court has carefully considered the parties' submissions and
decides the motion without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 78.1. For the reasons stated
below, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

I.

Background
On March 8, 201 7, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting

Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint. (ECF Nos. 22, 23.) As the Court already
set forth the factual background in its prior Memorandum Opinion (ECF No. 22), the Court
incorporates those facts here. On April 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration with
respect to the Court's March 8, 2017 decision. (ECF No. 24.)

1

A reply is not permitted on a motion for reconsideration without permission from the Court.
L.Civ.R. 7.l(d)(3). As such, the Court will not consider Plaintiffs reply.

II.

Legal Standard

In the District of New Jersey, Local Civil Rule 7.1 governs motions for reconsideration.
Morton v. Fauver, No. 97-5127, 2011 WL 2975532, at *1 (D.N.J. July 21, 2011) (citing Bowers
v. NCAA, 130 F. Supp. 2d 610, 612 (D.N.J. 2001)). 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) a need to correct a clear error oflaw or to prevent manifest injustice. 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, 130 F. Supp. 2d at 612-13. 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 &
Casino, 830 F. Supp. 826, 831 (D.N.J. 1992)).

III.

Discussion
Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its March 8, 2017 decision to prevent a "manifest

injustice." (Pl. 's Recons. Cert. ,-r 3, ECF No. 24.) Plaintiff does not submit new evidence or point
to a controlling decision of law that the Court previously overlooked. Instead, Plaintiffs reference
to "manifest injustice" is based on his personal disagreement with the outcome of the underlying
motions. This is not an appropriate basis for a motion for reconsideration as such disagreement
should be raised through the appellate process. See Smart v. Aramark Inc., No. 14-3007, 2014 WL
4053961, at *6 (D.N.J. Aug. 15, 2015). Moreover, Plaintiff already presented all ofhis substantive

2

assertions in the underlying motion. Plaintiff, therefore, 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. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration.

IV.

Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. An.

order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be entered.

Dated:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

AugusP-~7

3