United States District Court, D. New Jersey
VERONICA HARDY, and JOHN A. VICKERS, Plaintiffs,
GLOUCESTER COUNTY; WESTVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT; SERGEANT MICHAEL PACKER, Individually; OFFICER THOMAS CURL, Individually; HUDSON BAIL BONDS; MANNY NIEVES, Individually; OCTAVIO MEDINA, Individually, Defendants.
B. KUGLER United States District Judge.
MATTER having come before the Court upon Plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 68). For the reasons set
forth below, Plaintiffs' motion is DENIED.
8, 2013, at approximately 10:30 p.m., Sergeant Michael
Packer, Patrolman Thomas Curl, and Patrolman Brian
escorted bounty hunters Manny Nieves and Octavio Medina of
Hudson Bail Bonds to plaintiff Veronica Hardy's
(“Hardy”) residence at 1029 Broadway, Apt. B-5 in
Westville, New Jersey. The officers and bounty hunters sought
Joshua Cariola, Hardy's son, who was a fugitive. The
officers knocked on Hardy's door and Sergeant Packer
asked if they could search the apartment. Hardy testified
that she spoke with Sergeant Packer and gave consent for the
search. There is a factual dispute about whether
Hardy gave informed consent; Hardy maintains that Sergeant
Packer did not inform her that she could refuse the search-a
requirement under New Jersey law-while Sergeant Packer claims
that he did. The officers and bounty hunters then searched
the apartment. They did not find Cariola. Hardy testified
that Sergeant Packer was “very, very nice”
throughout the encounter but that the other officers did not
speak at any time. (Def. Ex. A; Hardy Dep. Tr. 53-54).
second amended complaint alleges that the bounty hunters
“came back and searched the apartment again on July 9,
2013 and July 10, 2013” without a police escort.
(See Am. Compl. at 2). Hardy's fiancé,
plaintiff John Vickers (“Vickers”), joins in the
suit. He was not present during the search and not a tenant
of the apartment.
Westville Police Department, Sergeant Packer, and Patrolman
Curl moved for summary judgment (Doc. No. 47) on March 8,
2017. Defendants Hudson Bail Bonds, Manny Nieves, and Octavio
Medina moved to dismiss this case for failure to state a
claim upon which relief could be granted (Doc. No. 52) on
March 17, 2017. This Court granted both motions. (Doc. No.
66). Plaintiffs subsequently submitted this motion for
reconsideration (Doc. No. 68) and appealed (Doc. No. 69).
District of New Jersey, motions for reconsideration are
governed by Local Civil Rule 7.1(i), which allows a party to
seek reconsideration by the court on matters which it
believes the court overlooked when it ruled on the motion.
Church & Dwight Co. v. Abbott Labs., 545
F.Supp.2d 447, 449 (D.N.J. 2008). “The standard for
[reconsideration] is quite high, and reconsideration is to be
granted only sparingly.” United States v.
Jones, 159 F.R.D. 309, 314 (D.N.J. 1994) (citing
Maldonado v. Lucca, 636 F.Supp. 621, 630 (D.N.J.
1986)). To prevail on a motion for reconsideration, the
movant must show: “(1) an intervening change in the
law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not
available when the court [issued its order]; or (3) the need
to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent
manifest injustice.” Max's Seafood Café
v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999).
have not demonstrated an intervening change of law,
previously unavailable evidence, or a clear error of law or
fact. (Id.). Instead, Plaintiffs make what
functionally amounts to the exact same arguments they made in
response to the motions initially. (See Doc. No.
54). As such, Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration must
reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration is DENIED. An order follows.