United States District Court, D. New Jersey
MICHAEL A.SHIPP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Consolidated Defendant
Alireza Maghazehe, Ph.D., FACHE's ("Dr.
Maghazehe") Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Local
Civil Rule 7.1(i). (ECF No. 129.) Consolidated Plaintiffs
Erol Veznedaroglu, M.D.; Global Neurosciences Institute LLC
("GNI"); Kenneth Liebman, M.D.; Mandy Binning.
M.D.; Zakaria Hakma, M.D.; Gerald Eckardt, M.D.; and Vikas
Rao, M.D. (collectively, "Consolidated Plaintiffs")
opposed. (ECF No. 135.) The Court has carefully considered
the parties' submissions and decides the matter without
oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 78.1. For the
reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Dr. Maghazehe's
Motion for Reconsideration.
February 27, 2017, the Court issued a decision on four
motions to dismiss, including a motion to dismiss filed by
Dr. Maghazehe. (Mem. Op., ECF No. 123.) Upon reviewing Dr.
Maghazehe's motion to dismiss, the Court determined that
the Consolidated Plaintiffs adequately pled claims against
Dr. Maghazehe under the federal and New Jersey Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organization ("RICO")
statutes. (Id. at 23-25.) Dr. Maghazehe now brings
the instant Motion, seeking the Court's reconsideration
with respect to these claims. (Dr. Maghazehe's Moving Br.
1-14, ECFNo. 129-1.)
under Local Civil Rule 7.1 is an extraordinary remedy that is
rarely granted. Interfaith Cmty. Org. v. Honeywell
Int'l, Inc., 215 F.Supp.2d 482, 507 (D.N.J. 2002). A
motion for reconsideration may be based on one of three
separate grounds: (1) "an intervening change in
controlling law"; (2) "new evidence not previously
available"; or (3) "to correct a clear error of law
or prevent manifest injustice." See Id.
motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity to raise new
matters or arguments that could have been raised before the
original decision was made. See Bowers v. NCAA, 130
F.Supp.2d 610, 612-13 (D.N.J. 2001). Nor is a motion for
reconsideration an opportunity to "ask the [C]ourt to
rethink what it ha[s] already thought through." See
Interfaith Cmty. Org., 215 F.Supp.2d at 507 (second
alteration in original) (citation omitted). "Rather, the
rule permits a reconsideration only when 'dispositive
factual matters or controlling decisions of law' were
presented to the court but were overlooked."
Id. (quoting Resorts Int'l v. Greate Bay
Hotel & Casino, 830 F.Supp. 826, 831 (D.N.J. 1992)).
Dr. Maghazehe fails to establish adequate grounds for
reconsideration. Dr. Maghazehe's Motion is predicated on
an unpublished bench decision issued by the New Jersey
Superior Court, Law Division, Civil Part (the "Law
Division") in Mercer County, New Jersey, in
Karabulutv. Capital Health System, Inc., No.
MER-L-1035-16 ( N.J.Super. Ct. Law Div. Mar. 2, 2017). As
unpublished bench decisions from the Law Division do not
constitute controlling authority on the interpretation of the
New Jersey or federal RICO statutes, the first ground for
reconsideration-whether there is an intervening change in
controlling law-has not been satisfied. Additionally, Dr.
Maghazehe does not make any arguments with respect to the
second ground for reconsideration-whether there is new
evidence not previously available. Dr. Maghazehe's
motion, therefore, appears to rest on the third ground for
reconsideration- whether the Court's prior decision
constituted a clear error of law or would result in manifest
injustice. Upon review of the parties' submissions, the
Court finds that Dr. Maghazehe has failed to demonstrate a
clear error of law or manifest injustice.
Maghazehe argues that Consolidated Plaintiffs allege mail
fraud and wire fraud as the predicate acts underlying the
RICO claims, but fail to allege that the purported fraud was
for obtaining money or property. (Dr. Maghazehe's Moving
Br. 4-11.) In response, Consolidated Plaintiffs argue that
their allegation that Dr. Maghazehe's scheme to steal
GNFs practice and patients is adequate to survive a motion to
dismiss. (Consolidated Pis.' Opp'n Br. 9-12.) Dr.
Maghazehe's arguments are not appropriate grounds for
reconsideration, as they have already been presented to the
Court in Dr. Maghazehe's original motion to dismiss and
he now asks the Court the rethink what it has already
considered. (See Dr. Maghazehe's Mot. to Dismiss
11-17, ECF No. 105-1.) Moreover, after reviewing the
parties' submissions, the Court does not find clear error
in its prior determination that the issues raised by Dr.
Maghazehe are more appropriate for summary judgment.
reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Dr. Maghazehe's
Motion for Reconsideration. The Court will issue an order