United States District Court, D. New Jersey, Camden Vicinage
B. KUGLER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MATTER arises from Plaintiff Karen Tucker's
Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 122], Motion for
Miscellaneous relief [Doc. No. 125], and Motion for Summary
Judgment [Doc. No. 126]. For the reasons articulated below,
this Court DENIES the motions.
Karen Tucker presents this Court with a new wave of motions,
many asking and re-asking the Court to grant previously
denied requests. The Court has gone to great lengths to
untangle the lengthy, often confusing, and meandering
discussions presented by Plaintiff. The Court further follows
the instructions of the Third Circuit and stands by the
Court's liberal construction of pro se motions.
As such, the current motions are best characterized as a
Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 122] of a Motion for
Summary Judgment, Motion for Miscellaneous Relief , and
Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 126]. The procedural
history is as follows:
January 2, 2018, Plaintiff Karen Tucker moved for summary
judgment [Doc. No. 75]. Subsequently, on or about March 20,
2018, Plaintiff moved to amend her Complaint [Doc. No. 85].
On May 4, 2018, Defendant Hewlett Packard, Inc.
(“HP”) filed a letter requesting leave to file an
Answer the Second Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 101].
Thereafter, on or about June 1, 2018, Plaintiff filed a
motion in opposition to Defendant's letter [Doc. No.
5, 2018, this Court issued an order: (1) denying
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment without
prejudice; (2) denying Plaintiff's motion to amend her
Complaint; (3) granting Defendant's request for leave to
file an Answer to the Second Amended Complaint; and (4)
denying as moot Plaintiff's opposition to Defendant's
request for leave to file an Answer to the Second Amended
Complaint [Doc. No. 109]. In that Order, the Court explained,
‘The court is obliged to give a party opposing summary
judgment an adequate opportunity to obtain discovery,'
Dowling v. City of Philadelphia, 855 F.2d 136, 139
(3d Cir. 1988) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 322 (1986)); see also Shelton v. Blesdoe,
775 F.3d 554, 568 (3d Cir. 2015) (‘If discovery is
incomplete, a district court is rarely justified in granting
summary judgment.'); Otsuka Pharm. Co. v. Sandoz
Inc., 2015 WL 7888710, at *1 (D.N.J. Sept. 9, 2015)
(denying summary judgment motion because ‘factual
discovery remains ongoing and in its early stages').
[Doc. No. 109]. The Court added, “Plaintiff has the
right to renew her motion for summary judgment at the close
of discovery.” Id.
though factual discovery was extended to July 16, 2018,
Plaintiff filed a motion on July 3, 2018, requesting this
Court to reconsider its Order of June 5, 2018 [Doc. No. 122].
Additionally, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration
seeks leave to supplement her prior Motion for
Reconsideration dated June 7, 2018 [Doc. No. 112], with a
transcript from the in-person status conference held on April
27, 2018. Plaintiff also submits to this Court a Motion for
Miscellaneous Relief, which asks the Court to consolidate
this matter with an unrelated eighteen-year-old case
involving the Plaintiff. [Doc. No. 125]. Finally, Plaintiff
submits another Motion for Summary Judgment on August 15,
2018 [Doc. No. 126]. This Motion seeks $25 million from
burning injuries allegedly sustained while using an HP
Court addresses Plaintiff's three motions in
chronological order of filing.
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is Denied as
the Local Rules of this Court, motions for reconsideration
are to be “filed within 14 days after the entry of the
order or judgment on the original motion by the Judge or
Magistrate Judge.” L. Civ. R. 7.1(i). This Court
entered the order at issue on June 5, 2018. Plaintiff's
Motion for Reconsideration, however, was filed on or about
July 3, 2018, nearly a month after the Court issued the Order
Plaintiff is contesting. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion
for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 122] is untimely and
Plaintiff's Motion for Miscellaneous Relief is Denied ...