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.

Nepomuceno v. Astellas U.S. LLC

United States District Court, Third Circuit

September 23, 2013

RYAN NEPOMUCENO, Plaintiff,
v.
ASTELLAS U.S. LLC, et al., Defendants.

OPINION & ORDER

FAITH S. HOCHBERG, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration or clarification of the Court's July 9, 2013 Opinion and Order [Dkt. No. 100], which granted-in-part a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants; and

it appearing that a motion for reconsideration is governed by Local Civil Rule 7.1(i); and

it appearing that Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) provides for the reconsideration of an order if the motion is filed within 14 days after entry of the disputed order; and

it appearing that the purpose of a motion for reconsideration is "to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence, " Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985); see also P. Shoenfeld Asset Mgmt. LLC v. Cendent Corp., 161 F.Supp.2d 349, 352 (D.N.J. 2001), Yurecko v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp., 279 F.Supp.2d 606, 609 (D.N.J. 2003); and

it appearing that Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) requires that the moving party set forth "concisely the matters or controlling decisions which the party believes the Judge... has overlooked;" and

it appearing that "[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court's decision, " G-69 v. Degnan, 748 F.Supp. 274, 275 (D.N.J. 1990); and

it appearing that "[a] mere recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering its original decision'" does not warrant reargument, Elizabethtown Water Co. v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 18 F.Supp.2d 464, 466 (D.N.J. 1998) (quoting Carteret Savings Bank F.A. v. Shushan, 721 F.Supp. 705, 706 (D.N.J. 1989)); and

it appearing that a court may grant a properly filed motion for reconsideration for one of three reasons: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law has occurred; (2) evidence not previously available has become available; or (3) it is necessary to correct a clear error of law or fact or prevent manifest injustice, Max's Seafood Cafe, By Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Max Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999); Database Am., Inc. v. Bellsouth Advertising & Publ'g. Corp., 825 F.Supp. 1216, 1220 (D.N.J. 1993) (citing Weyerhaeuser Corp. v. Koppers Co., 771 F.Supp. 1406, 1419 (D. Md. 1991)); see also Carmichael v. Everson, 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 11742, *2-3 (D.N.J. May 21, 2004); Miletta v. United States, Civ. No. 02-1349, 2005 WL 1318867, *8 (D.N.J. May 27, 2005); and

it appearing that a motion for reconsideration is improper when it is used to "ask the Court to rethink what [it] had already thought through - rightly or wrongly, '" Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. Alza Corp., Civ. No. 91-5286, 1993 WL 90412, *1 (D.N.J. March 25, 1993) (quoting Oritani Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 744 F.Supp. 1311, 1314 (D.N.J. 1990), rev'd on other grounds, 989 F.2d 635 (3d Cir. 1993); and

it appearing that because reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy, motions to reconsider or reargue are granted "very sparingly, " Maldonado v. Lucca, 636 F.Supp. 621, 630 (D.N.J. 1986); and

it appearing that disagreement with the Court's initial decision as the basis for bringing a motion "should be dealt with in the normal appellate process, not on a motion for reargument, " Florham Park Chevron, Inc. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 680 F.Supp. 159, 163 (D.N.J. 1988); and

it appearing that (1) there has been no intervening change in controlling law; (2) Plaintiff has not presented new evidence that was not available for the Court to consider; and (3) there has been no clear error of law or fact or manifest injustice;[1] and

it appearing that Plaintiff filed reply papers without seeking the Court's authorization as required by Local Rule 7.1(d)(3). Therefore, the Court will not consider Plaintiff's additional arguments set forth in its reply brief[2]; and

it appearing that Plaintiff also seeks "clarification" of the Court's Order; and

it appearing that the Court's Order is clear and unambiguous;

it is therefore on this 23rd day of September 2013,

ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED, and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff's reply brief should be STRUCK from the docket, and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for clarification is DENIED.


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.