United States District Court, D. New Jersey
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
G. SHERIDAN, U.S.D.J.
matter comes before the Court on a motion for reconsideration
brought by Defendant Acme Markets, Inc. [ECF No. 61] in
reference to this Court's ruling on the motion for
summary judgment issued on May 21, 2018 (ECF No. 60).
Specifically, Defendant seeks the Court's reconsideration
of the ruling with regard to Count I, which was the only
Count that survived the motion for summary judgment.
facts relevant to this matter have been set forth in the
Court's previous opinion and will not be repeated herein.
for reconsideration are governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) and L.
Civ. R. 7.1(i). The "extraordinary remedy" of
reconsideration is "to be granted sparingly."
A.K. Stamping Co., Inc., v. Instrument Specialties Co.,
Inc., 106 F.Supp.2d 627, 662 (D.N.J. 2000) (quoting
NL Indus., Inc., v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 935
F.Supp. 513, 516 (D.N.J. 1996)). The Rule "does not
contemplate a Court looking to matters which were not
originally presented." Damiano v. Sony
Music Entertainment, Inc., 975 F.Supp. 623, 634
(D.N.J. 1996) (quoting Florham Park Chevron, Inc., v.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 680 F.Supp. 159, 162 (D.N.J.
Third Circuit has held that the "purpose of a motion for
reconsideration 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),
cert, denied, 476 U.S. 1171 (1986).
"Reconsideration motions, however, may not be used to
relitigate old matters, nor to raise arguments or present
evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of
judgment." NL Indus., Inc., 935 F.Supp. at 516;
See Wright, Miller & Kane, Fed. Practice and
Procedure: Civil 2d § 2810.1. Such motions will
only be granted where (1) an intervening change in the law
has occurred, (2) new evidence not previously available has
emerged, or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or
prevent a manifest injustice arises. See, North River
Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218
(3d Cir. 1995J. Because reconsideration of a judgment after
its entry is an extraordinary remedy, requests pursuant to
these rules are to be granted "sparingly,"
Maldonado v. Lucca, 636 F.Supp. 621, 630 (D.N.J.
1986); and only when "dispositive factual matters or
controlling decisions of law" were brought to the
Court's attention but not considered. Pelham v.
United States, 661 F.Supp. 1063, 1065 (D.N.J. 1987).
See G-69 v. Degnan, 748 F.Supp. 274, 275 (D.N.J.
aver that the Court erred when it found Acme is a successor
in interest of A&P, which Defendants argue was contrary
to the findings of the Bankruptcy Court.
points to a sentence in this Court's opinion (ECF No. 60)
stating, "Acme argues that Mr. Podurgiel's claim did
not arise until November 9 or November 16, 2015 when he was
denied the right to resume work, so the prior bankruptcy
court finding was not an issue at that time." The Court
reviewed the sentence and recognizes that an inadvertent
typographical error occurred. The word "finding"
should have been "filing." In the interest of
clarity, the timeline of events is as follows: on July 19,
2015 the bankruptcy proceedings were filed, Plaintiffs claim
arose on or about November 9, or 16, 2015, the Bankruptcy
Court issued an order on January 22, 2016.
also argues that the opinion contained an error of law. In
determining the standard for successor liability, the Court
used the standard under the FMLA. Defendant contends that the
bankruptcy standard should apply. In re TWA, 322
F.3d 283, fn 4(3d Cir. 2003). The Court disagrees. See,
Cobb v. Contract Transp., 452 F.3d 543, 551
(6th Cir. 2006).
short, the Court understands that the Bankruptcy Court held
that Acme had no liability. However, in resolving the
questions of successor in interest in this matter, the
Court's decision is consistent with the case law as
applied to FMLA cases.
after reviewing Defendant's arguments, the motion for
reconsideration is DENIED.
MATTER having been opened to the Court by Defendant's
motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 61); and the Court having
fully considered the submissions in support thereof, and any
opposition thereto; and ...