United States District Court, D. New Jersey
May 11, 2005.
IN RE AT&T CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION. This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: GARRETT BROWN, District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon a letter dated May 3,
2005 by Roy B. Thompson ("Counsel"), counsel for Objectors Donald
and Jacquelynn Frame ("the Frames"), addressing this Court's
Opinion that approved settlement in this class action lawsuit.
Although Counsel states that it is not his "intention to take
issue with [this Court's] opinion at this level," Counsel
proceeds to do just that by objecting to the factual findings of
this Court and requesting correction of claimed "factual errors
in the opinion." (Thompson's Letter dated May 3, 2005). Counsel's
characterization of the letter as something other than an
objection is specious. Counsel clearly seeks to reargue matters
that this Court already decided. Consequently, the Court will
treat the letter as a motion for reconsideration under Local
Civil Rule 7.1(i).*fn1
The standard for reconsideration is high and reconsideration is
to be granted only sparingly. United States v. Jones,
158 F.R.D. 309, 314 (D.N.J. 1994). The movant has the burden of
demonstrating either: "(1) an intervening change in the
controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was
not available when the court [issued its order]; or (3) the need
to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest
injustice." Max's Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677
(3d Cir. 1999) (citing N. River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance
Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)). A motion that merely
raises disagreement with the Court's initial decision is not an
appropriate reconsideration motion, but should be dealt with in
the normal appellate process. Bowers v. Nat'l Collegiate
Athletic Ass'n, 130 F. Supp. 2d 610, 612 (D.N.J. 2001)
(citations omitted); see also Florham Park Chevron, Inc. v.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 680 F. Supp. 159, 163 (D.N.J. 1988).
Counsel's motion is denied. First, the motion is procedurally
defective. Counsel failed to comply with the Local Rules.
Counsel, having been admitted pro hace vice, is vested with the responsibility of complying with the Rules of this
Court.*fn2 Counsel faxed his letter to the Court on May 3,
2005. However, in direct contravention to Rule 7.1(i), Counsel
never "filed" the motion. If Counsel had adhered to this Rule,
then Counsel would have to address the strict standard governing
motions for reconsideration. Further, faxing letters to the Court
whenever Counsel feels so inclined is not acceptable.*fn3
Correspondence with the Court shall be accomplished by or through
Local Counsel pursuant to this Court's rules and accepted
Second, Counsel's motion fails on the merits. Counsel argues
that the Court must clarify in footnote five of the Opinion since
Counsel for the Frames never saw the fee agreement. The Court
disagrees and concludes that no such clarification is necessary.
Footnote five pertains to the fee agreement itself which this
Court found to be 15% for any recovery up to $25,000,000, 20% for
any recovery between $25,000,000 and $50,000,000, and 25% for any
recovery over $50,000,000. Whether or not Counsel for the Frames
actually saw the document memorializing the agreement is
Next, Counsel argues that the Court misquoted the Frames and
"mis-cited" authority. (Thompson's Letter dated May 3, 2005).
This argument is meritless. The quote appearing in footnote five
is taken verbatim from the section entitled "Fee Agreement with
Lead Plaintiff" of the Frames Reply Memorandum [Docket Entry #
339]. Additionally, Counsel contends that the Frames did not cite
In re Rite Aid Corp. Securities Litigation, 396 F.3d 294 (3d
Cir. 2005). However, referring to the same section of that Reply
Memorandum, the Frames clearly cited this case in support of its
proposition that the fee award for Lead Counsel should be
"smaller" than what is requested. (Frames Reply Mem. at 2). These
arguments are therefore rejected. Accordingly,
ORDERED that Counsel's motion for reconsideration is DENIED for
the reasons set forth.