United States District Court, D. New Jersey
August 16, 2005.
BRIARWOOD PROPERTIES, LTD., et al., Plaintiffs,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: ANNE THOMPSON, Senior District Judge
[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM and ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration of this Court's June 24, 2005 Order granting in
part Defendants' motion to utilize the Predetermined Amortization
Schedule System ("PASS") method for calculating interest on
Plaintiffs' loans. The Court has decided this motion after
considering the parties' written submissions and without oral
argument pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 78. For the reasons stated
below, Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration will be denied.
In the District of New Jersey, a motion for reconsideration is
governed by Rule 7.1(g) of the Local Civil Rules. United States
v. Compaction Sys. Corp., 88 F. Supp. 2d 339, 345 (D.N.J. 1999).
A motion under Rule 7.1(g) may address only those matters of fact
or issues of law which were presented to, but not considered by,
the court in the course of making the decision at issue. SPIRG
v. Monsanto Co., 727 F. Supp. 876, 878 (D.N.J. 1989), aff'd,
891 F.2d 283 (3d Cir. 1989). Matters may not be introduced for
the first time on a reconsideration motion, and absent unusual
circumstances, a court should reject new evidence which was not
presented when the court made the contested decision. See,
e.g., Yurecko v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp., 279 F. Supp. 2d 606, 609 (D.N.J. 2003); Resorts Int'l, Inc. v.
Greate Bay Hotel and Casino, Inc., 830 F. Supp. 826, 831 & n. 3
(D.N.J. 1992). Motions for reconsideration "are not an
opportunity to argue what could have been, but was not, argued in
the original set of moving and responsive papers." Bowers v.
National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 130 F. Supp. 2d 610, 613
Moreover, Rule 7.1(g) does not allow parties to restate
arguments which the court has already considered; rather, a
difference of opinion with the court's decision should be dealt
with through the normal appellate process. Florham Park Chevron,
Inc. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 680 F. Supp. 159, 162 (D.N.J.
1988). A court will grant a motion for reconsideration only if
the movant establishes that the court overlooked "dispositive
factual matters or controlling decisions of law." Rouse v.
Plantier, 997 F. Supp. 575, 578 (D.N.J. 1998). Relief under Rule
7.1(g) will be granted "very sparingly." Maldonado v. Lucca,
636 F. Supp. 621, 630 (D.N.J. 1986).
In the present motion, Plaintiffs do not argue that the Court
overlooked dispositive factual matters or controlling decisions
of law in reaching its prior decision, but instead ask the Court
to consider supplemental declarations that were available to them
when briefing their opposition to Defendants' motion. Plaintiffs
have not presented the Court with circumstances that would
counsel against rejecting such evidence. Moreover, even if the
procedural restrictions of a motion for reconsideration did not
render Plaintiffs' arguments invalid, the substantive deficiency
of the arguments would do so, and the Court has not altered its
For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,
IT IS THEREFORE on this 16th day of August 2005,
ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.