Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

John W. Fink v. Edgelink

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY


December 19, 2012

JOHN W. FINK, PLAINTIFF,
v.
EDGELINK, INC., AND KAYDON A. STANZIONE, DEFENDANTS.

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

This matter having come before the Court on plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the Court's March 27, 2012 Opinion and Order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment in defendants' favor;*fn1 and Local Civil Rule 7.1(I) providing, 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"; 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 recognizing that the motion 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

The Court having granted summary judgment in defendants' favor on plaintiff's claims that defendants are obligated to pay on contracts plaintiff entered into with an alleged predecessor company of defendants; and

Plaintiff arguing that the grant of summary judgment should be vacated, and the case should go to trial, because the Court overlooked "key aspects of customer relationships,"*fn2 and because of newly discovered evidence*fn3 ; and

The Court finding that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration fails because: (1) it exceeds the page limit (30 pages instead of the allowed 15)*fn4 ; (2) it did not overlook any "key aspects of customer relationships"; and (3) the purported "new" evidence was available prior to the Court's consideration of defendants' motion for summary judgment; and

The Court further finding that plaintiff has simply expressed disagreement with the Court's decision which is an inadequate basis for reconsideration;

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY on this 18th day of December , 2012 ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration [148] is DENIED.

NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J. At Camden, New Jersey


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.