United States District Court, D. New Jersey
MCNULTY, United States District Judge
matter comes before the Court on the plaintiffs motion for
reconsideration (ECF nos. 34, 35). For the reasons stated
herein, that motion is denied.
Rodriguez brings this action in connection with a 2005
mortgage and 2007 refinancing on his property in Kearny, New
Jersey. By Order (ECF no. 33) and Opinion (ECF no. 32) dated
December 23, 2016, I granted the motions under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) to dismiss the complaint for lack
of jurisdiction, and under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. Those three motions
were brought by defendants General Electric Company
("GE") and WMC Mortgage Corp. ("WMC");
HSBC Bank USA National Association as Trustee
("HSBC"), U.S. Bank N.A. ("U.S. Bank"),
and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo"); and
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
("MERS") (ECF no. 24).
motions to dismiss were granted on the following grounds.
First, the court lacks jurisdiction over some (but not all)
of the plaintiffs claims under the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine. (Opinion § III.A) Second, doctrines of res
judicata, including New Jersey's entire controversy
rule, bar the plaintiffs claims. The plaintiff had a full and
fair opportunity to litigate these matters in a prior state
court action, in which the grant of summary judgment in favor
of defendants was affirmed on appeal. See Rodrigues v.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. A-2373-14T4, 2016 WL 2759358
( N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div. May 13, 2016) (copy at ECF no. 21-3),
certif. denied, 2016 WL 6305413 (N.J. Oct. 7, 2016).
(Opinion § III.B) Finally, and in the alternative, these
claims, arising out of mortgage transactions in 2005 and
2007, are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations.
(Opinion § III.C)
Rodrigues has moved for reconsideration of the Court's
Opinion and Order dismissing his complaint with prejudice.
(ECF nos. 34, 35) Local Rule 7.1(i) governs motions for
reconsideration. Such a motion must specifically identify
"the matter or controlling decisions which the party
believes the Judge or Magistrate Judge has overlooked."
Id. Reconsideration is granted sparingly, and only
in three situations: (1) when there has been an intervening
change in the law; (2) when new evidence has become
available; or (3) when necessary to correct a clear error of
law or to prevent manifest injustice. See North River
Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218
(3d Cir. 1995); Carmichael v. Everson, 2004 WL
1587894 (D.N.J. May 21, 2004). "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."' Oritani Sav. &
Loan Ass'n v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 744
F.Supp. 1311, 1314 (D.N.J. 1990) (quoting Abofe the Belt
v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101
in this motion approaches the threshold for reconsideration.
plaintiff raises a number of theories as to why the 2005
mortgage and/or 2007 refinancing were invalid. (These
arguments are for the most part, but not entirely, in ECF no.
34.) There is nothing here that was not or could not have
been raised in connection with the original motions to
dismiss. Both the facts and the cases cited date from long
At any rate, the Court's prior Opinion did not reach
those substantive grounds, which have no bearing on the
actual grounds for dismissal.
the actual grounds for dismissal-the Rooker-Feldman
jurisdictional bar, res judicata, and the statute of
limitations-the plaintiff likewise raises nothing that could
not have been raised before. (These arguments are for the
most part, but not entirely, in ECF no. 35.) He cites a 1991
Appellate Division decision. He states that he believes MERS
was not licensed in New Jersey in 2005, but that he did not
learn of that fact until 2015 and therefore did not raise it
in the prior state action. Nevertheless, this fact was
knowable, if not actually known to him, and it could have
been raised in the earlier action. The plaintiff states that
he was likewise unaware of the case of Jesinoski v.
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., ___U.S.___, 135 S.Ct. 790
case, however, was decided in 2015, and, for the reasons
stated in my prior Opinion, has no application here. (Opinion
§ III.C) Other, more recent cases cited in the motion
stand only for such general propositions as the Supreme
Court's sole authority to overrule one of its own
precedents. This Court was well aware of such principles when
it filed its prior Opinion. Other authorities, such as a Yale
Law Review Comment, do not persuade the Court.
reasons expressed above, the plaintiffs motion for
reconsideration (ECF nos. 34, 35) is DENIED. A separate Order
accompanies this Opinion.
The single exception, the
non-precedential case of Martinez v. Bank of America, 664
F.App'x 250 (3d Cir. Nov. 9, 2016), does not aid the
plaintiff. It upheld a district court dismissal of a