United States District Court, D. New Jersey
BRIAN R. MARTINOTTI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
MATTER is before the Court on pro se
Plaintiff Nicholas Purpura's (“Purpura”)
Motion for “Reconsideration of ‘Memorandum
Order' Denying Summary Judgement [sic] & Temporary
Restraining Order That Warranted A Summary Judgment.”
(ECF No. 6.)
for reconsideration are proper pursuant to this
District's Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) if there are
“matters or controlling decisions which counsel
believes the Judge . . . has overlooked.” L.Civ.R.
7.1(i); Dunn v. Reed Grp., Inc., No. 08-1632, 2010
WL174861, at *1 (D.N.J. Jan 13, 2010). The comments to
that Rule make clear, however, that “reconsideration is
an extraordinary remedy that is granted ‘very
sparingly.'” L.Civ.R. 7.1(i) cmt. 6(d) (quoting
Brackett v. Ashcroft, No. 03-3988, 2003 WL 22303078,
*2 (D.N.J. Oct. 7, 2003)). The Third Circuit has held the
scope of a motion for reconsideration is “extremely
limited.” Blystone v. Horn, 664 F.3d 397, 415
(3d Cir. 2011). “Such motions are not to be used as an
opportunity to relitigate the case; rather, they may be used
only to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present
newly discovered evidence.” Id. A court
commits clear error of law “only if the record cannot
support the findings that led to the ruling.” ABS
Brokerage Servs. v. Penson Fin. Servs., Inc., No.
09-4590, 2010 WL 3257992, at *6 (D.N.J. Aug. 16, 2010)
(citing United States v. Grape, 549 F.3d 591, 603-04
(3d Cir. 2008)). “Thus, a party must . . . demonstrate
that (1) the holdings on which it bases its request were
without support in the record, or (2) would result in
‘manifest injustice' if not addressed.”
Id. In short, “[m]ere ‘disagreement with
the Court's decision' does not suffice.”
ABS Brokerage Servs., 2010 WL 3257992, at *6
(quoting P. Schoenfeld Asset Mgmt. LLC v. Cendant
Corp., 161 F.Supp.2d 349, 353 (D.N.J. 2001)); see
also United States v. Compaction Sys. Corp., 88
F.Supp.2d 339, 345 (D.N.J. 1999) (“Mere disagreement
with a court's decision normally should be raised through
the appellate process and is inappropriate on a motion for
[reconsideration].”); Florham Park Chevron, Inc. v.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 680 F.Supp. 159, 163 (D.N.J.
1988); Schiano v. MBNA Corp., No. 05-1771, 2006 WL
3831225, at *2 (D.N.J. Dec. 28, 2006) (“Mere
disagreement with the Court will not suffice to show that the
Court overlooked relevant facts or controlling law, . . . and
should be dealt with through the normal appellate process . .
. .”) (citations omitted).
Court has reviewed the submissions filed in connection with
the Motion and enters its decision without oral argument
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b).
1. On April 16, 2018, Purpura filed a “memorandum in
support of a motion for temporary restraining order
[(“TRO”)] that warrants a summary judgment,
” which was docketed as a complaint and construed by
the Court as a motion for an ex parte TRO,
preliminary injunction, and for summary judgment (ECF No. 1;
see ECF No. 3);
2. The Court denied, on the same date, Purpura's motion
for injunction relief and for summary judgment and ordered
him to serve defendants (ECF No. 3);
3. On May 2, 2018, Purpura filed this Motion for
Reconsideration of the Court's April 16, 2018 Order
asserting reasons why he is entitled to the injunctive relief
and summary judgment already denied;
4. In essence, Purpura attempts to relitigate his request for
injunctive relief and summary judgment, but “[m]ere
‘disagreement with the Court's decision' does
not suffice.” ABS Brokerage Servs., 2010 WL
3257992, at *6 (quoting P. Schoenfeld Asset Mgmt. LLC v.
Cendant Corp., 161 F.Supp.2d 349, 353 (D.N.J. 2001));
5. The Court thoroughly reviewed and considered Purpura's
memorandum and the arguments and cases cited therein and
finds the record supports its April 16, 2018 Order.
for the reasons set forth above and for good cause appearing,
IT IS on this 31st day of January 2019,
ORDERED that Purpura's Motion (ECF No.
6) is DENIED.
 Motions for reconsideration are not
expressly recognized in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
United States v. Compaction Sys. Corp., 88 F.Supp.2d
339, 345 (D.N.J. 1999), but are accepted in this District
under the Local Civil Rules. Generally, a motion for
reconsideration is treated as a motion to alter or amend
judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), or as a
motion for relief from judgment or order under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 60(b). Id. For the same reasons
that the State Defendants' motion is denied on the merits
under the Local Rule, it is denied under the Federal Rules.
See Holsworth v. Berg, 322 Fed.Appx. 143 (3d Cir.
2009) (construing motion for reconsideration as the
functional equivalent of a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or
amend a judgment which requires either “(1) ...