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.

Earl D. Hickson v. Marina Associates

June 29, 2011

EARL D. HICKSON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MARINA ASSOCIATES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hillman, District Judge

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

THIS MATTER having come before the Court upon the motion of Plaintiff, Earl D. Hickson, for relief from a final judgment or order, specifically this Court's Opinion and Order dated September 27, 2010, which denied his motion for summary judgment, and granted in part and denied in part the motions for summary judgment filed by Defendants, Marina Associates, doing business as Harrah's Casino Hotel Atlantic City, Vance Thompson, and Anne Haag (collectively, "Casino Defendants")*fn1 and the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement, Josh Lichtblau, Mark Kosko, and George Morton (collectively, "State Defendants"); and

This matter also having come before the Court upon Hickson's motion for default judgment; and

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)*fn2 providing that "the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding" on the grounds of:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;

(4) the judgment is void;

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or

(6) any other reason that justifies relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); and

The Court noting that, given the strong interest in the finality of judgments, "relief from a judgment under Rule 60 should be granted only in exceptional circumstances," Boughner v. Sec'y of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 572 F.2d 976, 977 (3d Cir. 1978); and

Hickson, in his motion seeking relief from the Court's September 27, 2010 Opinion and Order, challenging the Court's reasoning and determinations articulated in its aforementioned Opinion and Order, including its decisions relating to sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, and the absence of any genuine issues of material fact; and

The Court finding that Hickson's motion, in large part, recasts the same arguments he previously advanced in his numerous, voluminous filings, which were reviewed and considered by the Court, and that, in essence, Hickson states his disagreement with the Court's findings and conclusions; and

The Court having already considered and addressed Hickson's arguments in and as part of the ...


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.