United States District Court, D. New Jersey
JACK A. SHULMAN, Plaintiff,
FACEBOOK.COM, et al., Defendants.
OPINION & ORDER
Michael Vazquez, U.S.D.J.
case arises from Plaintiffs claims that Defendants are
engaged in a vast conspiracy to stop Plaintiffs media company
from using Facebook. Currently pending before the Court are
two motions: (1) Defendant Facebook, Inc.'s motion for
reconsideration of the Court's August 10, 2018 Order,
D.E. 118, granting Plaintiffs motion for leave to appeal
in forma pauperis, D.E. 120; and (2) Plaintiffs
cross-motion to supplement the record on appeal, D.E. 127.
The Court reviewed all submissions in support and in
opposition of these motions and considered the motions
without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 78(b) and Local Civil Rule 78.1 (b). For the
reasons that follow, Defendant's motion for
reconsideration is denied, and Plaintiffs motion to
supplement the record on appeal is denied.
Court included an extensive factual background in its July 9,
2018 Opinion dismissing with prejudice Plaintiffs Second
Amended Complaint, D.E. 111, which the Court incorporates by
reference here. After the Court dismissed Plaintiffs Second
Amended Complaint with prejudice, D.E. 111, 112, Plaintiff
filed a notice of appeal, D.E. 114, and moved for leave to
file the appeal in forma pauperis, D.E. 115.
Defendant opposed this motion, D.E. 117, and Plaintiff
replied, D.E. 119. On August 6, 2018, the Court granted
Plaintiffs motion for leave to appeal in forma
pauperis. D.E. 118 ("Prior Order").
there are multiple Defendants in this case, only Defendant
Facebook, Inc. moved for reconsideration of the Court's
August 20, 2018 decision. D.E. 120. Plaintiff opposed this
motion, and filed a cross-motion to supplement the record on
October 1, 2018. D.E. 127. Defendant opposed Plaintiffs cross
motion, and replied to Plaintiffs opposition, on October 8,
2018. D.E. 128. Plaintiff replied to Defendant's
opposition of his cross-motion on October 8, 2018. D.E. 129.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
District of New Jersey, motions for reconsideration can be
made pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(i). The rule provides
that such motions must be made within fourteen days of the
entry of an order. The Court issued its Order on August 10,
2018. D.E. 118. Defendant filed its motion for
reconsideration on August 20, 2018. D.E. 120. Accordingly,
Defendant complied with this time requirement.
a motion for reconsideration is viable when one of three
scenarios is present: (1) an intervening change in the
controlling law, (2) the availability of new evidence not
previously available, or (3) the need to correct a clear
error of law or prevent manifest injustice. Carmichael v.
Everson, No. 03-4787, 2004 WL 1587894, at *1 (D.N.J. May
21, 2004) (citations omitted). Granting a motion for
reconsideration is an "extraordinary remedy," to be
granted "sparingly." NL Indus., Inc. v.
Commercial Union Ins. Co., 935 F.Supp. 513, 516 (D.N.J.
1996) (citations omitted). A motion for reconsideration,
however, does not entitle a party to a second bite at the
apple. Therefore, a motion for reconsideration is
inappropriate when a party merely disagrees with a
court's ruling or when a party simply wishes to re-argue
or re-hash its original motion. Sch. Specialty, Inc. v.
Ferrentino, No. 14-4507, 2015 WL 4602995, *2-3 (D.N.J.
July 30, 2015); see also Florham Park Chevron, Inc. v.
Chevron U.S.A., 680 F.Supp. 159, 162 (D.N.J. 1988).
Moreover, a motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity
to raise matters that could have been raised before the
original decision was reached. Bowers v. NCAA, 130
F.Supp.2d 610, 613 (D.N.J. 2001).
of In Forma Pauperis Grant
is not arguing an intervening change in law or that new
evidence has since become available in support of its motion
for reconsideration. Instead, Defendant argues that the Court
must correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest
injustice. Defendant argues that the Court should reconsider
and vacate its grant of in forma pauperis status to
Plaintiff on appeal because the Court failed to consider
whether the appeal was "taken in good faith," as
required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Def Br. at 1.
Defendant cites precedent from the Ninth Circuit in support
of this argument. Id. (citing Smart v.
Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1995)).
is largely rehashing the argument that it already made in
opposition to Plaintiffs motion for leave to appeal in
forma pauperis. See D.E. 117 at 1-2. The Court
considered this argument at that time; Defendant simply
disagrees with the Court's conclusion. This is not
grounds for reconsideration.
Court further finds that Defendant's argument is
inconsistent with Third Circuit precedent. The Third Circuit
[w]hile there may be extreme circumstances where such a right
[to proceed in forma pauperis] should be denied for
plain lack of merit, we think that, particularly in pro
se cases, the right to proceed in forma
pauperis should generally be ...