United States District Court, D. New Jersey
ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS, INC., NEW JERSEY CHAPTER, et al., Plaintiffs,
CITY OF JERSEY CITY, NEW JERSEY, Defendant, and HUDSON COUNTY BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL, Intervenor-Defendant.
WIGENTON, District Judge.
this Court is Intervenor-Defendant Hudson County Building and
Construction Trades Council (“Trades Council”)
and Defendant City of Jersey City, New Jersey's
(“Jersey City”) (collectively,
“Defendants”) Joint Motion for Reconsideration
and/or Clarification of this Court's June 15, 2017 Order.
This Opinion is issued without oral argument pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. For the reasons stated
herein, the Joint Motion for Clarification is
GRANTED, and the Joint Motion for
Reconsideration is DENIED.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Court assumes the parties' familiarity with the factual
background and procedural history in this matter and thus
will summarize only those facts relevant to the instant
August 29, 2014, Plaintiffs Associated Builders and
Contractors, Inc., New Jersey Chapter, GMP Contractors LLC,
Alpine Painting and Sandblasting Contractors, Alper
Enterprises, Inc., and Ron Vasilik (collectively,
“Plaintiffs”) filed suit against Defendant Jersey
City. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) On September 23, 2014, Trades
Council filed a Motion to Intervene, which this Court granted
on October 16, 2014. (ECF No. 12.)
their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that a City Ordinance (the
“Ordinance”) that imposes certain restrictions on
developers of tax-abated projects is preempted by the
National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), 29 U.S.C.
§ 151 et seq. (Compl. ¶¶ 29-33.)
Plaintiffs also allege that the Ordinance's
apprenticeship requirement violates the Privileges and Immunities
and/or the Commerce Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, and is
preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1002(1), 1144.
(Id. ¶¶ 34-39.)
August 3, 2015, this Court granted Jersey City's motion
to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety, finding that Jersey
City acted as a market participant and not a regulator. (ECF
Nos. 33-34.) On September 1, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a notice
of appeal in the Third Circuit, appealing only the dismissal
of their NLRA, ERISA, and dormant Commerce Clause claims, and
not their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or state law claims. (ECF No.
35.) On September 16, 2016, the Third Circuit concluded that
Jersey City was acting as a regulator and remanded the case
for further proceedings. See Associated Builders &
Contractors Inc. N.J. Chapter v. City of Jersey City,
836 F.3d 412, 421 (3d Cir. 2016).
February 17, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(c). (ECF No. 58.) Plaintiffs moved to enjoin enforcement
of the Ordinance on any tax-abated project, arguing that the
Ordinance is preempted under the NLRA and ERISA, and is
unconstitutional on its face under the dormant Commerce
Clause. (Id.) On June 15, 2017, this Court granted
Plaintiffs' motion, and enjoined enforcement of the
Ordinance “on any tax-abated project.” (ECF Nos.
71-72.) Defendants subsequently filed the instant motion to
reconsider and/or clarify that decision. (ECF Nos. 76- 77.)
general purpose of a motion for clarification is to explain
or clarify something ambiguous or vague, not to alter or
amend.” Skelcy v. United Health Grp., No.
12-1014, 2014 WL 9910576, at *1 (D.N.J. Nov. 14, 2014)
(quoting Lynch v. Tropicana Prods., Inc., No.
11-7382, 2013 WL 4804528, at *1 (D.N.J. Sept. 9, 2013)). In
contrast, the purpose of a motion to reconsider is to
“correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present
newly discovered evidence.” Harsco Corp. v.
Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985); see
also Asirifi v. Omni Asset Mgmt., LLC, No. 11-4039, 2013
WL 4858711, at *1 (D.N.J. Sept. 11, 2013).
seeking reconsideration must establish one of the following:
“(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the
availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct
clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.”
Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir.
2010). Reconsideration is granted sparingly as it is
considered an extraordinary remedy. J.J.C. Boats, Inc. v.
Hlywiak, 573 F.Supp.2d 871, 873 (D.N.J. 2008). A motion
for reconsideration will not be granted where the moving
party is simply seeking to set forth the reasons why it
disagrees with the court's decision or is asking
“the court to analyze the same facts and cases it had
already considered in reaching its original decision.”
Tehan v. Disability Mgmt. Servs., 111 F.Supp.2d 542,
549 (D.N.J. 2000). As Defendants fail to establish any basis
for reconsideration of this Court's June 15, 2017 Order,
their Motion for Reconsideration will be denied. This Court
will, however, provide clarification as to the scope and
application of its June 15th Opinion and Order.
Defendants seek further guidance as to whether this
Court's Opinion and Order: (1) voids the Ordinance
entirely, or only as it applies to tax-abated projects; and
(2) retroactively and/or prospectively voids PLAs entered
into pursuant to the Ordinance. (See Defs.' Br.
at 1, 3.)
Scope of June 15, ...