United States District Court, D. New Jersey
OPINION & ORDER
Michael Vazquez, U.S.D.J.
case comes before the Court on Defendant Dennis Maas'
motion for reconsideration of the denial of his motion to
dismiss. D.E. 37. Defendant Hoyt Corporation opposes the
motion. D.E. 38. Maas previously moved to dismiss the
interpleader Complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, D.E. 24, which the Court denied, D.E. 35, 36.
The Court has reviewed all of the submissions made in support
or in opposition to the motion, and considered the motion
without oral argument pursuant to L. Civ. R. 78.1(b). For the
reasons stated below, Defendant Maas' motion for
reconsideration is DENIED.
I. Standard of Review
District of New Jersey, motions for reconsideration can be
made pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(i). The rule provides
that such motions must be made within 14 days of the entry of
an order. Substantively, a motion for
reconsideration is viable when one of three scenarios is
present: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law,
(2) the availability of new evidence not previously
available, or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or
prevent manifest injustice. Carmichael v. Everson,
No. 03-4787, 2004 WL 1587894, at *1 (D.N.J. May 21, 2004)
motion for reconsideration, however, does not entitle a party
to a second bite at the apple. Therefore, a motion for
reconsideration is inappropriate when a party merely
disagrees with a court's ruling or when a party simply
wishes to re-argue or re-hash its original motion. Sch.
Specialty, Inc. v. Ferrentino, No. 14-4507, 2015 WL
4602995, *2-3 (D.N.J. July 30, 2015); see also Florham
Park Chevron, Inc. v. Chevron U.S.A., 680 F.Supp. 159,
162 (D.N.J. 1988). Reconsideration is an "extraordinary
remedy" that is granted "very sparingly."
Brackett v. Ashcroft, 2003 WL 22303078, at *2
(D.N.J. Oct. 7, 2003) (citations omitted). Moreover, a motion
for reconsideration is not an opportunity to raise matters
that could have been raised before the original decision was
reached. Bowers v. NCAA, 130 F.Supp.2d 610, 613
argues in his motion for reconsideration that the Court
should refrain from deciding this case under the
Younger abstention doctrine; second, that the entire
controversy doctrine precludes parties from re-litigating
issues in federal court that are simultaneously pending in
state court; and that state claims predominate this case.
See Brief in Support of Maas' Motion for
Reconsideration, D.E. 37 at pg. 4, 6, 8.
outset, Maas fails to indicate under which of the three bases
for relief he is proceeding. The first prong, an intervening
change in the controlling law, does not apply to any of the
new arguments. As to the Younger abstention
argument, Maas did raise this argument in his initial motion,
but failed to provide any substantive analysis. Thus, his
request for relief on this ground is denied because he is
merely rehashing his previous argument and, to the extent he
is now engaging in an actual analysis of the doctrine, he
clearly could have done so in his initial motion to dismiss.
the remaining arguments, the entire controversy doctrine and
state claims predominating, Maas did not raise these
arguments in his original motion to dismiss. Nor has Maas
given any reason why he failed to do so or could not have
done so. In fact, Defendant's brief does not cite the
reconsideration standard at all, except to say that the
issues raised in the instant motion were "not briefed
previously" and were "overlooked in the previous
motion and Opinion[.]" Obviously, the Court could not
have overlooked that which was not raised. Reconsideration
can be granted only where "dispositive factual matters
or controlling decisions of law were brought to the
court's attention but not considered."
Brackett, 2003 WL 22303078, at *2 (citations
omitted). This is clearly not the case here. Instead, it
appears that Maas did not realize that when he consented to
Judge Clark's October 6, 2016 order, D.E. 10, which
permitted Transamerica to deposit the funds at issue with the
Court while at the same time requiring Maas to implead his
right to the money, that Maas was going to continue to
litigate the case in this Court. That misunderstanding,
however, is not a basis for relief. Thus, Defendant's
motion is denied.
reasons stated above, and for good cause shown, IT IS on this
26th day of January, ORDERED that Defendant's motion for
reconsideration is DENIED, and it is further
that Defendant Maas has seven (7) days from the date of this
order to answer the Complaint.