United States District Court, D. New Jersey
A. Greenhouse, Esq. CULLEN AND DYKMAN LLP Attorney for
Jessica Rose O'Neill, Assistant U.S. Attorney Office of
the U.S. Attorney Attorney for Defendants
OPINION UPON RECONSIDERATION
B. SIMANDLE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Borough of Avalon (hereinafter “Plaintiff”)
brought this case against the United States Army Corps of
Engineers and the United States Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter
“Defendants”) alleging violations of §
706(2)(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (hereinafter,
“the APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(a),
specifically alleging an arbitrary and capricious
interpretation of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act, 16
U.S.C. § 3501, et seq. (hereinafter, “the
CBRA”). (See generally Complaint [Docket
Item 1].) Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint, on the
basis that Plaintiff's challenge to the application of
the CBRA was moot, Plaintiff lacked standing to sue, and that
Plaintiff failed to identify a final agency action subject to
review by this Court. (See generally Motion to
Dismiss [Docket Item 15].) The Court granted Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss [Docket Item 15], holding that the dispute
underlying Plaintiff's Complaint is moot and that
Plaintiff lacks standing to challenge the Defendants'
actions, because Plaintiff's injuries are “not
sufficiently concrete or imminent.” Borough of
Avalon v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, No.
16-8057, 2017 WL 3917138, at *6 (D.N.J. Sept. 7, 2017).
However, the Court granted Plaintiff “leave to amend
its Complaint in a [manner] consistent with the Court's
Opinion.” (Id.) Plaintiff has not filed an
now moves for reconsideration of the Court's Order
granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (Motion for
Reconsideration [Docket Item 22].) The principal issue to be
decided is whether there is a “need to correct a clear
error of law or fact or to prevent manifest
injustice.” U.S. ex rel. Shumann v. Astrazeneca
Pharm. L.P., 769 F.3d 837, 848-49 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing
Max's Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v.
Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)). For the
following reasons, the Court will deny Plaintiff's motion
Factual and Procedural Background
factual and procedural background of this case was thoroughly
described in this Court's Opinion of September 9, 2017
and shall not be repeated herein. Borough of Avalon,
2017 WL 3917138, at *1-2.
Opinion, the Court held that the controversy underlying
Plaintiff's Complaint was rendered moot, that the funding
was in place, due to Defendants' acceptance of a bid to
undertake the next phase of the Project. Id. at
*3-4. The Court also held that Plaintiff's injuries, as
stated in its Complaint, are “not sufficiently concrete
or imminent to create standing.” Id. at *6.
“As the Court [dismissed the] matter on standing [and
mootness] grounds, ” the Opinion did not address
whether the case presented “a final agency action
subject to judicial review.” Id.
Standard of Review
Civil Rule 7.1 allows a party to seek a motion for
reconsideration or re-argument of “matter[s] or
controlling decisions which the party believes the Judge or
Magistrate Judge has overlooked . . . .” Local Civ. R.
7.1(i). Whether to grant a motion for reconsideration is a
matter within the Court's discretion, but it should only
be granted where such facts or legal authority were indeed
presented but overlooked. See DeLong v. Raymond Int'l
Inc., 622 F.2d 1135, 1140 (3d Cir. 1980), overruled
on other grounds by Croker v. Boeing Co., 662 F.2d 975
(3d Cir. 1981); see also Williams v. Sullivan, 818
F.Supp. 92, 93 (D.N.J. 1993).
prevail on a motion for reconsideration, the movant must
(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the
availability of new evidence that was not available when the
court . . . [rendered the judgment in question]; or (3) the
need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent
U.S. ex rel. Shumann v. Astrazeneca Pharm. L.P., 769
F.3d 837, 848-49 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing Max's Seafood
Café ex rel. Lou- Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176
F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)). The standard of review
involved in a motion for reconsideration is high and relief
is to be granted sparingly. U.S. v. Jones, 158
F.R.D. 309, 314 (D.N.J. 1994). “The Court will grant a
motion for reconsideration only where its prior decision has
overlooked a factual or legal issue that may alter the
disposition of the matter. The word ‘overlooked' is
the operative term in the Rule.” Andreyko v.
Sunrise Sr. Living, Inc., 993 F.Supp.2d 475, 478 (D.N.J.
2014) (internal citations and quotation ...