The opinion of the court was delivered by: Wolfson, United States District Judge
***NOT FOR PUBLICATION***
Presently before the Court is a motion for reconsideration filed by Plaintiff Advanced Technologies and Installation Corporation d/b/a Telecom Network Specialists ("Telecom"), challenging this Court's denial of its motion to remand the Complaint filed by Defendant Nokia Siemens Networks US, LLC ("Nokia"). For the reasons that follow, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration but denies its request to order remand.
I. Statement of Facts and Procedural History
The pertinent facts are fully set forth in the Court's September 2, 2010 decision denying Telecom's motion for remand, and only those facts necessary for disposition of the instant motion are repeated here.
Plaintiff Telecom, a Washington corporation, entered into a written Master Services Agreement ("Agreement") to provide telecommunications infrastructure, such as cellular telephone towers, for Defendant Nokia's client, T-Mobile Wireless/T-Mobile USA ("the Project"). Compl., ¶¶ 1-2. According to the Complaint, Nokia breached the Agreement by refusing to pay Telecom for numerous base and out-of-scope services amounting to over 3 million dollars. When the parties were not successful in attempting to resolve their dispute, Telecom filed the instant complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Somerset County, on October 23, 2009.
The suit was removed to this Court by Defendant, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332, 1441 and 1446, on December 10, 2009. On January 6, 2010, Defendant filed a motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Subsequently, on January 8, 2010, Plaintiff moved to remand based on Defendant's purported failure to plead diversity of citizenship of the parties. Upon hearing both motions, the Court denied Telecom's motion to remand and granted Nokia's motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of Texas.
In connection with its decision to remand, the Court rejected Telecom's argument that the parties are not diverse and, therefore, that Nokia's removal was improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Court reasoned:
In its Notice of Removal, Nokia indicated that Nokia is a wholly-owned subsidiary of NSN Holdings, and that NSN Holdings is a Delaware corporation with a principal of business also in Delaware. Notice of Removal, ¶ 3. Telecom contends that the Notice failed to identify each of its members and their citizenship, and that this omission is critical because the citizenship of an LLC, such as Nokia, is determined by reference to the citizenship of each of its members. Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412, 420 (3d Cir. 2010). In that Nokia is a limited liability company, Telecom argues, Nokia's failure to identify its members and their citizenship should be fatal to its Notice of Removal.
The glaring problem with Telecom's argument is that Nokia indicated in its Notice that it is wholly-owned by NSN Holdings. That means that it has only one member. Because Nokia is wholly-owned by a Delaware corporation with a Delaware principal place of business, Nokia is deemed a corporate citizen of Delaware. Id. ("[t]racing citizenship through the layers" of single-member limited liability companies); R & R Capital v. Merritt, No. 07-2869, 2007 WL 3102961 at *5 (E.D.Pa. Oct. 23, 2007) ("[T]he citizenship of a limited liability company is determined like that of a limited partnership, by imputing to it the citizenship of its members.") (collecting cases).*fn1 Telecom, being a Washington corporation with a principal place of business in Texas, is deemed a citizen of both of those states. Therefore, I conclude that Nokia has sufficiently demonstrated that the parties are diverse.*fn2 Opinion dated September 2, 2010 at 8-9.
Telecom argues, on its motion for reconsideration, that the Court erred in determining that a "wholly-owned" company has only one member. Under Delaware law, Telecom contends, an LLC may have members that do not possess ownership interests. Further, while acknowledging that Nokia, in fact, has only one member, Telecom argues that "[b]y failing to identify all of its members, as opposed to its owners, [Nokia] has incurably failed to properly and timely allege diversity so as to confer jurisdiction upon this Court." Telecom Open. Br. at 5 (emphasis in original).
While the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly recognize motions for "reconsideration," United States v. Compaction Sys. Corp., 88 F.Supp.2d 339, 345 (D.N.J. 1999), the Local Civil Rules governing the District of New Jersey do provide for such review. See Light, N.J. Federal Practice Rules, Comment 6 to L.Civ.R. 7.1 (Gann 2008). Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) states that a motion for reconsideration "setting forth concisely the matter or controlling decisions which the party believes the Judge or Magistrate Judge has overlooked" may be filed within ten (10) business days after entry of an order. L. Civ. R. 7.1(i)*fn3 . The motion may not be used to relitigate old matters or argue new matters that could have been raised before the original decision was reached. See P. Schoenfeld Asset. Mgmt., L.L.C. v. Cendant Corp., 161 F.Supp.2d 349, 352 (D.N.J. 2001).
"The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or to present newly discovered evidence." Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985), cert. denied 476 U.S. 1171, 106 S.Ct. 2895, 90 L.Ed.2d 982 (1986); Tecchio v. United States ex rel. Meola, Civ. Action No. 03-1529, 2004 WL 2827899, *1 (D.N.J. Oct. 24, 2003) (quoting same). The granting of a motion for reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy and should be sparingly given by the court. Connolly v. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines (America), Inc., No. 04-5127, 2010 WL 715775, at *1 (D.N.J. Mar. 1, 2010) (citations omitted). Reconsideration is not appropriate where ...