The opinion of the court was delivered by: Linares, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court by way of a motion for reconsideration of this Court's July 11, 2011 Letter Opinion and Order filed by Plaintiff [Docket Entry No. 180]. The Court has considered the submission made in support of the instant motion. No oral argument was heard. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78. Based on the reasons that follow, the motion is denied.
As the Court writes only for the parties, a familiarity with the factual and procedural background of this matter will be presumed. Plaintiff's original Complaint was filed on August 19, 2010. An Amended Complaint was filed on April 27, 2011. Defendant Partygaming PLC ("Partygaming") subsequently filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) [Docket Entry No. 148]. Defendant OIGE CG Ltd. ("OIGE") also filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) [Docket Entry No. 159]. On July 11, 2011, this Court granted Defendants Partygaming and OIGE's motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, dismissing with prejudice as to those defendants.
Currently before the Court is a motion for reconsideration of the Court's July 11, 2011 holding as it pertains to its claims against Defendants Partygaming and OIGE. Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its dismissal of all claims against those defendants.
Local Rule 7.1(I) provides, in relevant part:
A motion for reconsideration shall be served and filed within 14 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.
L.Civ.R. 7.1(I). "Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy" and should be "granted 'very sparingly.' " See L.Civ.R. 7.1(I) cmt.6(d); see also Felons v. Lombard Investment Corp., Nos. 04-3993, 04-5768, 04-3992, 04-6105, 2005 WL 3104145, at *1 (D.N.J. Oct. 18, 2005). A judgment may be altered or amended if the movant shows at least one of the following grounds: "(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court [issued its order]; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice." Max's Seafood Cafe v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)(citing N. River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)). When the assertion is that the Court overlooked something, the Court must have overlooked "some dispositive factual or legal matter that was presented to it." McGovern v. City of Jersey, No. 98-5186, 2008 WL 58820, at *2 (D.N.J. Jan. 2, 2008). Moreover, 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. See, e.g., P. Schoenfeld Asset Mgmt., L.L.C. v. Cendant Corp., 161 F. Supp. 2d 349, 352 (D.N.J. 2001).*fn1
Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its July 11, 2011 holding as it pertains to the dismissal of all claims filed against Defendants Partygaming and OIGE. The Court must first determine whether Plaintiff's arguments are properly raised under Local Civil Rule 7.1(I), thus permitting this Court to reach the merits of the motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff his filed a timely motion for reconsideration within fourteen days of this Court's order of dismissal. However, Plaintiff must also meet its burden to put forth dispositive facts or controlling decisions which they claim this Court overlooked. L. Civ. R. 7.1(I).
Plaintiff does not present intervening controlling law nor additional dispositive factual evidence not reviewed in the Court's original Opinion, so this Court will construe Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration to rest on the ground that the Court needs to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice. Specifically, the error pointed to by Plaintiff is alleged to be this Court's incorrect construal of whether an "offer of sale" establishes personal jurisdiction over Defendants Partygaming and OIGE. Since this Court rested its dismissal of claims not on the grounds that an "offer of sale" may establish personal jurisdiction but rather on the failure of ...