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.

Bida v. Johnson

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

April 24, 2017

Bida
v.
Johnson

         Re [D.E. 29, Plaintiff's Informal Motion for Reconsideration]

          LETTER ORDER - OPINION

          HONORABLE STEVE MANNION U.S.M.J.

         Before the Court is Plaintiff Ilirjan Bida's (“Mr. Bida”) appeal of this Court's Order dated December 20, 2016, granting Defendant Sharon Johnson's (“Ms. Johnson”) Motion for Summary Judgment.[1] Mr. Bida filed a brief appealing this Court's grant of summary judgement on January 24, 2017. The application will be treated as a motion for reconsideration.[2] Upon consideration of the papers submitted in support and those in opposition, [3] Mr. Bida's motion for reconsideration is denied for the reasons set forth herein.

         Motions for reconsideration must be filed within fourteen (14) days “after the entry of the order or judgment on the original motion by the Judge or Magistrate Judge.”[4] The Order was filed on December 20, 2016, but reconsideration was not filed until 35 days later on January 24, 2017. While such motions must be filed within 14 days after the entry of the order or judgment, [5] “in deference to [a party's] pro se status . . . the Court may relax this strict deadline to prevent surprise or injustice.”[6]

         Reconsideration “is not appropriate where the motion only raises a party's disagreement with the Court's initial decision.”[7] To prevail on a motion for reconsideration, the moving party must show 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 [made its initial decision]; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.”[8]“A motion for reconsideration under Rule 7.1(i) is an extremely limited procedural vehicle, and requests pursuant to [the rule] are to be granted ‘sparingly.'”[9]

         Mr. Bida fails to demonstrate an intervening change in the controlling law, an availability of new evidence, or a clear error of law or fact in this Court's December 20, 2016 decision. Mr. Bida argues that summary judgment was improperly granted because there remain “disputed material facts.”[10] He does not, however, identify new evidence or facts that would support his position and instead reiterates his prior argument, stated in his Opposition to Summary Judgment, that he suffered injustices in state court.[11] Mr. Bida does not dispute that the Court applied the Rooker-Feldman doctrine correctly, nor does he argue that this Court's analysis of his due process claims was incorrect.[12]

         The Court finds that Mr. Bida has not presented new information or a compelling argument to warrant reconsideration of this Court's Order granting Ms. Johnson's Motion for Summary Judgment.

         An appropriate Order follows:

         ORDER

         IT IS on this Friday, April 21, 2017

         1. ORDERED that Plaintiff Ilirjan Bida's motion for reconsideration is DENIED on the merits.

---------

Notes:

[1] (ECF Docket Entry No. (“D.E.”) 29, Pl.'s ...


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.