Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Tucker v. HP Hewlett Packard, Inc.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey, Camden Vicinage

March 14, 2019

Karen TUCKER, Plaintiff,
v.
HP HEWLETT PACKARD, INC. and HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY HP, Defendants.

          OPINION

          ROBERT B. KUGLER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         THIS 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.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff 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 [125], and Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 126]. The procedural history is as follows:

         On 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. 108].

         On June 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.

         Even 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 product.

         II.DISCUSSION

         The Court addresses Plaintiff's three motions in chronological order of filing.

         1. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is Denied as Untimely

         Under 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 DENIED.

         2. Plaintiff's Motion for Miscellaneous Relief is Denied ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.