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.

Scott v. Schindler Elevator Corp.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

August 13, 2019

THEODORE R. SCOTT, Plaintiff,
v.
SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION, DAVE DURANT, KYLE RAINWATER, JOE ZEILMAN, JOHN & JANE DOES 1-10, and ABC & XYZ CORPORATIONS, Defendants.

          MARCIA Y. PHILLIPS MARCIA Y. PHILLIPS, ESQ. LLM & ASSOC. PO BOX 625 MOORESTOWN, N.J. 08057 Attorney for Plaintiff Theodore R. Scott.

          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.

          OPINION

          NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

         This 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.

         BACKGROUND

         This 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.

         ANALYSIS

         A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

         This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367.

         B. Motion for Reconsideration Standard

         Local 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).

         C. Plaintiff's Opposition Brief

         On June 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 ...


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.