The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Joseph E. Irenas
IRENAS, Senior District Judge:
On November 23, 2010, this Court granted summary judgment to Defendants on all claims asserted in this employment discrimination / retaliation suit. Presently before the Court are: (1) Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Judgment, or Alternatively to Reconsider its decision granting summary judgment to Defendants / Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider the denial of Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint; (2) Defendants' Motion for Sanctions; and (3) Defendants' Motion for Injunctive Relief, seeking to enjoin Plaintiff from applying for employment with Defendant BDCI, and from "filing papers with any government agency, tribunal or court related to any applications for employment with BDCI or any hiring decision by BDCI." (Defendants' Proposed Order). For the reasons set forth herein, all of the motions will be denied.*fn1
The facts and claims of this case are set forth at length in the Court's Opinion addressing Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Murray v. Beverage Distrib. Ctr., Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123941 (D.N.J. Nov. 23, 2010), and need not be repeated here.
Motion for Reconsideration Standard
A motion for reconsideration may only be granted on the ground that (1) an intervening change in the controlling law has occurred; (2) evidence not previously available has become available; or (3) vacating the Order is necessary to correct a clear error of law or manifest injustice. North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995).
Motions for reconsideration must be filed within 14 days of the entry of the original order or judgment sought to be reconsidered. L. R. Civ. P. 7.1(e).
Motion to Alter Judgment Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) "permits a court to alter or amend a judgment, but it may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment." Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 582 n.5 (2008). "A proper Rule 59(e) motion therefore must rely on one of three grounds: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice." Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting North River Ins. Co v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)).
Rule 59 motions must be filed "no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
Any attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United States or any Territory thereof who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct. 28 U.S.C. § 1927.
Sanctionable conduct under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) includes "presenting to the court a pleading written motion, or other paper . . . for any improper purpose such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation," and pursuing legally or factually frivolous "claims, defenses, [or] other legal contentions."
In addition to the sanctioning authority granted to this Court by statute and rule, this Court also has inherent authority to sanction bad faith conduct. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991).
The Court first considers Plaintiff's Motion before turning to ...