Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Koger, Inc. v. Polak

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY


November 25, 2009

KOGER, INC., PLAINTIFF,
v.
MAREK POLAK, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

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

OPINION & ORDER

ON INFORMAL APPLICATION

This matter having come before the Court by way of Defendant Polak's ("Polak") application for reconsideration of the Order on Informal Application dated November 5, 2009, in which the Court denied Polak permission to file sanctions against Plaintiff Koger ("Koger"); and the Court having considered the November 5, 2009 Order, its reasoning, the parties' submissions,*fn1 and the standard for addressing applications for reconsideration; and the Court deciding this motion without oral argument pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 78 and Local Civ. R. 78.1 as the submissions sets forth the parties' positions; and applications for reconsideration being governed by Local Civ. R. 7.1(i); and Local Civ. R. 7.1(i) providing for the reconsideration of an order if the motion for the same 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 November 5, 2009 and the application for reconsideration was filed on November 13, 2009, and therefore the application is timely;

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 P. Shoenfeld Asset Mgmt. LLC v. Cendant Corp., 161 F. Supp. 2d 349, 352 (D.N.J. 2001); Yurecko v. Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp., 279 F. Supp. 2d 606, 609 (D.N.J. 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," Database Am., Inc. v. Bellsouth Adver. & Publ'g Corp., 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, Civ. No. 03-4787, 2004 WL 1587894 at *1 (D.N.J. May 21, 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," Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. Alza Corp., Civ. No. 91-5286, 1993 WL 90412, at *1 (D.N.J. Mar. 25, 1993) (citing Oritani Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md., 744 F. Supp. 1311, 1314 (D.N.J. 1990), rev'd on other grounds, 989 F.2d 635 (3d Cir. 1993));

and Polak not arguing that there has been an intervening change in the law or that there is newly available evidence;

and the Court finding that Polak's reasons do not warrants reconsideration because the Court's denial was neither clear error of law and the failure to reconsider will result not result in manifest injustice;

and for the reasons set forth herein;*fn2

and for good cause shown

IT IS on this 25th day of November, 2009

ORDEREDthat Defendant Polak's application for reconsideration of the Order on Informal Application dated November 5, 2009 concerning permission to file sanctions against Plaintiff Kroger is denied.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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