Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Bass

August 20, 2007

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFFS
v.
ALIF BASS, DEFENDANT



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Patty Shwartz United States Magistrate Judge

OPINION & ORDER

This matter having come before the Court by way of the defendant's motion for reconsideration of the Order dated April 5, 2007, which granted the motion of the United States to detain the defendant pending trial;

and the Hon. Stanley R. Chesler having referred this motion to the Undersigned;

and the Court having considered the April 5, 2007 Order, the record of proceedings, and the parties submissions;*fn1

and the Court deciding this matter without oral argument pursuant to Local Civ. R. 78.1, which applies in criminal cases, see Local Crim. R. 1.1;

and a Motion for Reconsideration (a/k/a Motion for reargument)*fn2 being governed by Local Civil Rule 7.1(i);*fn3

and Local Civ. R. 7.1(i) providing for the reargument of an order if the motion is filed within 10 days (excluding weekends and holidays) after entry of the disputed order;

and the docket reflecting that the Order was entered on April 5, 2007 and the motion for reconsideration was filed on August 13, 2007 and therefore the motion is untimely and is procedurally barred;

and the Court noting that even if the motion was timely, the Court finding that the defendant has failed to show reconsideration is warranted;

and the Court noting 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. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985); see also Shoenfeld Asset Mgt. v. Cendent Corp., 161 F. Supp. 2d 349, 352 (D.N.J. 2001); Yurecko v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson, 2003 WL 22001196, at * 2 (D.N.J. Aug. 18, 2003);

and a court may grant a properly filed motion for reconsideration for one of three reasons: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law has occurred; (2) evidence not previously available has become available; or (3) it is necessary to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice, see United States v.Abdullah, 2007 WL 1816010 * (D.N.J. June 21, 2007); Database America v. Bellsouth Advertising & Publ'g., 825 F. Supp. 1216, 1220 (D.N.J. 1993)(citing Weyerhaeuser Corp. v. Koppers Co., 771 F. Supp. 1406, 1419 (D. Md. 1991)); Carmichael v Everson, 2004 WL 1587894 (D.N.J. 2004);

and Local Civ. R. 7.1(i) requiring that the moving party set forth "concisely the matters or controlling decision which counsel believes the [Court] has overlooked," G-69 v. Degnan, 748 F. Supp. 274, 275 (D.N.J. 1990);

and a motion for reconsideration being improper when it is used "to ask the Court to rethink what it had already thought through -- rightly or wrongly," see Ciba-Geigy Corporation v. Alza Corporation, 1993 WL 90412, at *1 (D.N.J. Mar. 25, 1993); Oritani Sav. & Loan v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 744 F. Supp. 1311, 1314 (D.N.J. 1990), rev'd on other grounds, 989 F.2d 635 (3d Cir. 1993);

and because reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy, motions to reconsider or reargue are granted "very sparingly," Maldonado v. Lucca, 636 F. Supp. 621, 630 (D.N.J. 1986); Damiano v. Sony ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.