United States District Court, D. New Jersey
B. KUGLER United States District Judge.
MATTER having come before the Court upon plaintiff
Jeffrey Bello's (“Bello”) motion for
reconsideration. (Doc. No. 81). For the reasons set forth
below, Bello's motion is DENIED.
September 9, 2015, Bello filed a complaint and motion for a
preliminary injunction against Edgewater Park Sewer Authority
(“EPSA”) and the State of New
Jersey. (Doc. No. 1; Doc. No. 2). This was denied.
(Doc. No. 3). On September 29, 2015, Bellow filed a second
motion for a preliminary injunction. (Doc. No. 7). The Court
heard argument on this motion on November 9, 2015 and it was
denied. (Doc. No. 19). Bello filed another motion for a
preliminary injunction on August 8, 2016. (Doc. No. 46). This
motion was denied on September 30, 2016. (Doc. No. 53). On
October 31, 2016, Bello filed an amended complaint. (Doc. No.
62). EPSA answered on November 22, 2016 and filed its motion
for summary judgment on May 1, 2017. (Doc. No. 62; Doc. No.
70). Bello replied and filed his own cross-motion for summary
judgment on May 19, 2017. (Doc. No. 71). He then filed a
motion for an emergency preliminary injunction on August 18,
2017. (Doc. No. 74). On October 26, 2017, this Court granted
EPSA's motion for summary judgment and denied Bello's
cross-motion for summary judgment and Bello's motion
seeking an emergency preliminary injunction. (Doc. No. 79).
We entered judgment in favor of EPSA. (Id.).
issue are unpaid bills stemming from Bello's home's
connection to EPSA's public sewage line. (See
Am. Compl. at 6). The subject property is located at 143 E.
Warren St., Edgewater Park, New Jersey. (Id.). It is
classified by EPSA as a four unit home for sewage cost
assessment and billing purposes. (Id.). Bello
disputes EPSA's designation and billing practices as to
the home; he alleges that only three people have ever resided
there at one time. (Id.). Bello further alleges that
he has been charged “false connection fees, ” was
provided “false information” that led to the
public sewer line's initial installment, and that in
2010, an EPSA representative admitted as much and declared
that Bello was overcharged. (Id.).
this statement, Bello has refused to pay EPSA-asserting that
these bills are false taxes-and has instead tried to bill the
agency himself. He has not pursued available state remedies.
Instead, Bello says that he “requested help” from
every “feasible entity” in New Jersey but to no
avail. (Pl. Mot. Prelim. Inj. at 7). Bello has not brought
suit in New Jersey Superior Court because he claims that he
does not have standing. (Id. at 13). Bello now faces
a tax lien on his house which he asserts will force him into
bankruptcy. (See Id. at 15).
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).
has not demonstrated an intervening change of law, previously
unavailable evidence, or clear error of law or fact.
(Id.). Instead, Bello reiterates his earlier
arguments and conclusory proclamations. (See Doc.
No. 71; Doc. No. 79). To the extent Bellow disagrees with
this Court's decision, he may appeal it. But without
demonstrating or coherently alleging any of the three bases
for reconsideration, this Court must deny his motion for