United States District Court, D. New Jersey
matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration of the Court's March 31, 2017 Opinion and
Order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss. (D.E. No.
23). Defendants opposed Plaintiffs' motion (D.E. No. 25),
and Plaintiffs replied (D.E. No. 26). Having considered the
parties' submissions in support of and in opposition to
the instant motion, the Court decides the motion without oral
argument. See L. Civ. R. 78.1. For the reasons
below, Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
March 31, 2017, the Court issued an Opinion and Order
granting Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs'
Complaint. (D.E. No. 21 (“Opinion”); D.E No. 22
(“Order”) (together, the “March 2017
decision”)). As the Court already set forth the factual
background in its prior Opinion, the Court incorporates those
facts here. On April 12, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration with respect to the Court's March 2017
decision. (D.E. No. 23-4 (“Motion”)).
District of New Jersey, Local Civil Rule 7.1 governs motions
for reconsideration. Morton v. Fauver, No. 97-5127,
2011 WL 2975532, at *1 (D.N.J. July 21, 2011) (citing
Bowers v. NCAA, 130 F.Supp.2d 610, 612 (D.N.J.
2001)). Reconsideration 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) a need to
correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest
injustice. Id. A 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, 130 F.Supp.2d at 612-13. Nor is a motion
for reconsideration an opportunity to ask the Court to
rethink what it has already thought through. See
Interfaith Cmty. Org., 215 F.Supp.2d at 507.
“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)).
make no claim that there was an intervening change in the
controlling law or that evidence that was not previously
available has become available. (See generally
Motion). Plaintiffs instead ask the Court to reconsider its
March 2017 decision dismissing without prejudice
Plaintiffs' First Amendment claim on the grounds that the
claim “was dismissed contrary to established Supreme
Court precedent and is clearly erroneous.”
(Id. at 1). Plaintiffs' Motion appears to rest
on the position that reconsideration is necessary to correct
a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.
Generally, this means that the Court overlooked some
dispositive factual or legal matter that was presented to it.
See L. Civ. R. 7.1(i); see also Rose v.
Alternative Ins. Works, LLC, No. 06-1818, 2007 WL
2533894, at *1 (D.N.J. Aug. 31, 2007).
however, fail to show a need to correct a clear error of law
or to prevent manifest injustice. See Interfaith Cmty.
Org., 215 F.Supp.2d at 507. Indeed, the Court's
Opinion addresses most of the “established Supreme
Court precedent” on which Plaintiffs currently
rely. And the Court's interpretation of
Heffernan v. City of Paterson, which Plaintiffs
argue is incorrect, appears to be consistent with
Plaintiffs' proposed interpretation in their instant
Motion. Similarly, Plaintiffs' view on
establishing a defendant's motive also appears to be
consistent with the Court's March 2017
decision. Rather, Plaintiffs' argument is based
on their personal disagreement with the Court's
application of established precedent to the facts
alleged in the Complaint. But that is not an appropriate
basis for a motion for reconsideration, as such disagreement
should be raised through the appellate process. See Smart
v. Aramark Inc., No. 14-3007, 2014 WL 4053961, at *6
(D.N.J. Aug. 15, 2015). Moreover, Plaintiffs already
presented all of their substantive assertions in the
underlying motion. Plaintiffs, therefore, have failed to
proffer any change in law, unconsidered evidence, or
persuasive argument that the Court has committed a clear
error of law that requires correction. Accordingly,
Plaintiffs' Motion is denied.
reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs' Motion is DENIED. An
appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
 A reply is not permitted on a motion
for reconsideration without permission from the Court.
See L. Civ. R. 7.1(d)(3). Although the Court will
consider Plaintiffs' reply, it cautions counsel that the
Court will disregard any future filings that do not ...