United States District Court, D. New Jersey
THEODORE R. SCOTT, Plaintiff,
SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION, DAVE DURANT, KYLE RAINWATER, JOE ZEILMAN, JOHN & JANE DOES 1-10, and ABC & XYZ CORPORATIONS, Defendants.
Y. PHILLIPS MARCIA Y. PHILLIPS, ESQ. LLM & ASSOC. PO BOX
625 MOORESTOWN, N.J. 08057 Attorney for Plaintiff Theodore R.
GREGORY T. ALVAREZ ROBERT J. CINO JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
TIMOTHY MICHAEL MCCARTHY JACKSON LEWIS P.C. Attorneys for
Defendants Schindler Elevator Corporation, Dave Durant, Kyle
Rainwater, and Joe Zeilman.
L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
case concerns various federal and state employment
discrimination claims, as well as state common law claims,
relating to the termination of Plaintiff's employment
with Defendants. Currently before the Court is
Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration. For the reasons
discussed herein, Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration
will be granted, in part, and denied, in part.
Court takes its facts from its May 3, 2019 Opinion and Order
analyzing Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. It incorporates
the facts stated in that opinion as if stated fully herein.
After the Court's May 3, 2019 Opinion and Order was
published, Defendants filed their Motion for Reconsideration
on May 17, 2019. After several extension requests,
Plaintiff's opposition was filed on June 17, 2019.
Defendants filed a letter on June 20, 2019 requesting
additional briefing in the event that the Court were to
consider Plaintiff's opposition as a cross-motion for
reconsideration. The Court entered a text order on June 24,
2019 denying Defendants' supplemental briefing request
and stating it would not consider Plaintiff's opposition
brief as a cross-motion for reconsideration. Defendants'
Motion for Reconsideration, therefore, is fully briefed and
ripe for adjudication.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the case pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367.
Motion for Reconsideration Standard
Rule 7.1(i) allows a party to file a motion with the Court
requesting the Court to reconsider the “matter or
controlling decisions which the party believes the Judge or
Magistrate Judge has overlooked.” Under Local Rule
7.1(i), the moving party must demonstrate “‘the
need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent
manifest injustice.'” Andreyko v. Sunrise Sr.
Living, Inc., 993 F.Supp.2d 475, 478 (D.N.J. 2014)
(citations omitted). In doing so, the moving party must show
the “‘dispositive factual matter or controlling
decisions of law'” it believes the court overlooked
in its initial decision. Mitchell, 913 F.Supp.2d at
78 (citation omitted). A mere disagreement with the Court
will not suffice to show that the Court overlooked relevant
facts or controlling law. United States v. Compaction
Sys. Corp., 88 F.Supp.2d 339, 345 (D.N.J. 1999).
Plaintiff's Opposition Brief
17, 2019, Plaintiff filed a document entitled
“Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition to Motion for
Reconsideration.” In it, as Defendants highlight in
their June 20, 2019 letter to the Court, are several
arguments which could be considered objections to the
Court's May 3, 2019 Opinion and Order. In response to
Defendants' letter, which requested the opportunity to
respond to the points made in Plaintiff's opposition
brief, the Court issued a text order to the docket on June
24, 2019 stating that it would not consider Plaintiff's