UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
October 21, 2010
SCOTT ROSENBERG, PLAINTIFF,
LINCOLN FINANCIAL GROUP, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP., THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hillman, District Judge
OPINION & ORDER
THIS MATTER having come before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's April 12, 2010 decision granting Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment and denying Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's claims that Defendants improperly terminated his COBRA benefits; and
THE COURT NOTING THAT L. Civ. R. 7.1(i) provides, in relevant part, "A motion for reconsideration shall be served and filed within 14 business days after the entry of the order or judgment on the original motion by the Judge or Magistrate Judge. A brief setting forth concisely the matter or controlling decisions which the party believes the Judge or Magistrate Judge has overlooked shall be filed with the Notice of Motion"; and
THE COURT RECOGNIZING THAT the purpose of a motion for reconsideration "is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence," Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999), and that a judgment may be altered or amended only if the party seeking reconsideration shows: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court granted the motion for summary judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice, id.; and
THE COURT FURTHER NOTING THAT a motion for reconsideration may not be used to re-litigate old matters or argue new matters that could have been raised before the original decision was reached, P. Schoenfeld Asset Mgmt., L.L.C. v. Cendant Corp., 161 F. Supp. 2d 349, 352 (D.N.J. 2001), and mere disagreement with the Court will not suffice to show that the Court overlooked relevant facts or controlling law, United States v. Compaction Sys. Corp., 88 F. Supp. 2d 339, 345 (D.N.J. 1999), and should be dealt with through the normal appellate process, S.C. ex rel. C.C. v. Deptford Twp Bd. of Educ., 248 F. Supp. 2d 368, 381 (D.N.J. 2003); and
IT APPEARING THAT Plaintiff has not alleged any intervening change in the controlling law or discovery of any new evidence since the entry of the Court's Order; and
IT FURTHER APPEARING THAT Plaintiff also has not demonstrated that the Court needs to correct a clear error of law*fn1 or fact or prevent manifest injustice;
IT FURTHER APPEARING THAT Plaintiff asserts that the Court erred by making improper findings of fact and improperly weighing the evidence in favor of Defendants; and
THE COURT FINDING THAT it made no findings of fact in its Opinion dated April 12, 2010, but rather applied the summary judgment standard and ultimately determined that Plaintiff failed to present any genuine issues of material fact capable of supporting his claims*fn2; and
THE COURT FURTHER FINDING THAT Plaintiff's current Motion is simply a reargument of his Partial Motion for Summary Judgment and his opposition to Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment, and reiterates the same points this Court already addressed and rejected; and
THE COURT FURTHER FINDING THAT Plaintiff's Motion is a disagreement with the Court's decision; and
THE COURT FURTHER FINDING THAT all of Plaintiff's arguments were considered and rejected in the Court's April 12, 2010 Opinion and that, as noted above, mere disagreement with the Court will not suffice to show that the Court overlooked relevant facts or controlling law, Compaction Sys. Corp., 88 F. Supp. 2d at 345;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED on this 21st day of October, 2010, that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration  is DENIED.
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.