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.

Tringali v. Township of Manalapan

United States District Court, Third Circuit

November 13, 2013

Tringali
v.
Township of Manalapan, et al.

LETTER OPINION

JOEL A. PISANO, District Judge.

Dear parties:

Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b). For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is denied.

A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)

Motions for reconsideration are not expressly recognized in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. United States v. Compaction Sys. Corp., 88 F.Supp.2d 339, 345 (D.N.J. 1999). Generally, a motion for reconsideration is treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), or as a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b). Id. In the District of New Jersey, Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) governs motions for reconsideration.[1] Agostino v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., Civ. No. 04-4362, 2010 WL 5392688, *5 (D.N.J. Dec. 22, 2010) (citing Bryan v. Shah, 351 F.Supp.2d 295, 297 (D.N.J. 2005)).

Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) permits a party to seek reconsideration by the Court of a matter which the party believes the Judge "overlooked" when it ruled on the motion. A motion for reconsideration under Rule 7.1(i) "shall be served and filed within 14 days after the entry of the order or judgment on the original motion by the Judge" and submitted with a "brief setting forth concisely the matter or controlling decisions which the party believes the Judge... has overlooked." L. Civ. R. 7.1(i).

The standard for reargument is high and reconsideration is to be granted only sparingly. United States v. Jones, 158 F.R.D. 309, 314 (D.N.J. 1994). A judgment may be altered or amended under Rule 7.1(i) 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 to prevent manifest injustice. Max's Seafood Cafe v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 667 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing N. River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)). The Court will grant a motion for reconsideration only if its prior decision overlooked a factual or legal issue that may alter the disposition of the matter. Compaction Sys. Corp., 88 F.Supp.2d at 345.

A party seeking to introduce new evidence on reconsideration bears the burden of first demonstrating that the evidence was unavailable or unknown at the time of the original hearing. See Levinson v. Regal Ware, Inc., Civ. No. 89-1298, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18373, at *3 (D.N.J. Dec. 1, 1989). "Reconsideration motions... may not be used to re-litigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of the judgment." NL Industries, Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 935 F.Supp. 513, 516 (D.N.J. 1996). In other words, "[a] motion for reconsideration should not provide the parties with an opportunity for a second bite at the apple." Tishcio v. Bontex, Inc., 16 F.Supp.2d 511, 533 (D.N.J. 1998) (citation omitted). Thus, a difference of opinion with the court's decision should be dealt with through the normal appellate process. Florham Park Chevron, Inc. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 680 F.Supp. 159, 162 (D.N.J. 1998).

Plaintiff requests reconsideration of the Court's dismissal of his complaint "to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent a manifest injustice, " alleging that his complaint was dismissed in error because Defendants "engaged in shoddy police work" by using "highly suggestive" techniques to obtain Plaintiff's grand jury indictment. Defendants argue that Plaintiff's motion is both untimely and without merit under Local Civil Rule 7.1(i).

Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was filed on May 10, 2013, twenty-two (22) days after the entry of the Court's April 18, 2013 Order dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion was not "filed within 14 days after the entry of the order or judgment on the original motion by the Judge" as required under Local Civil Rule 7.1(i), and is therefore untimely.

Notwithstanding the timelines issue, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration lacks merit. Plaintiff argues that he should be given the opportunity to "conduct discovery in order to prove his claims" and "establish the lack of probable cause" for his arrest because the indictment against him was "procured by fraud, perjury or other corrupt mean[s]." However, Plaintiff fails to assert that this Court overlooked any factual or legal issue that was brought to the Court's attention but not considered. Rather, Plaintiff disagrees with this Court's decision that probable cause existed for his arrest and now seeks to reargue matters already decided by this Court.

Plaintiff is asking the Court to "rethink what is already thought through-rightly or wrongly, " which does not meet the requirements for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 7.1(i). Fishbein Fam. P'ship v. PPG Indus., No. Civ.A.93-653, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18812, at *3 (D.N.J. Dec. 28, 1994). Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating that the Court failed to consider allegedly dispositive factual matters and decisions of law cited by Plaintiff. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration must be denied.

B. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides, in ...


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.