United States District Court, D. New Jersey
LIUDMILA M. MURAVEVA, Plaintiff,
CITY OF WILDWOOD, et al., Defendants.
B. KUGLER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on the motion of Plaintiff
Liudmila Muraveva (“Plaintiff”) for
reconsideration [Docket Item 40] of certain portions of the
December 18, 2018 Opinion and Order. [Docket Items 38 &
39.] Defendants City of Wildwood, Ronald Harwood, and Steven
Booy oppose the present motion. [Docket Item 43.] For the
reasons discussed below, the Court will deny Plaintiff's
motion in its entirety. The Court finds as follows:
Factual Background and Procedural
matter, Plaintiff initially alleged various claims against
Defendants mostly based on actions purportedly taken by them
involving a property Plaintiff owns in Wildwood, New Jersey.
[See generally Docket Item 1.] After convening oral
argument on December 4, 2018 [Docket Item 37], the late
Honorable Jerome B. Simandle, U.S.D.J., granted summary
judgment in favor of Defendants and dismissed the entire
Complaint. Muraveva v. City of Wildwood, 2018 WL
6617266 (D.N.J. Dec. 18, 2018).Thereafter, Plaintiff filed the
pending motion, seeking reconsideration of Sections C, F, G,
and H of that Opinion [Docket Item 40], and Defendants filed
opposition. [Docket Item 43.] The motion is now fully briefed
and ripe for disposition. The Court decides the motion
without oral argument pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 78.
Standard of Review.
Local Civil Rules of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey allow a party to seek reconsideration or
re-argument of “matter[s] or controlling decisions
which the party believes the Judge or Magistrate Judge has
overlooked.” L. Civ. R. 7.1(i). To prevail on such a
motion for reconsideration, the movant must show: “(1)
an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the
availability of new evidence that was not available when the
court [rendered the judgment in question]; or (3) the need to
correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest
injustice.” U.S. ex rel. Shumann v. Astrazeneca
Pharm. L.P., 769 F.3d 837, 848-49 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing
Max's Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v.
Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)). The
standard of review for reconsideration is high and to be
granted sparingly. United States v. Jones, 158
F.R.D. 309, 314 (D.N.J. 1994).
pending motion, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of Sections
C, F, G, and H of the December 18, 2018 Opinion. The Court
addresses Plaintiff's arguments with respect to each
Section in turn.
first asks the Court to reconsider the dismissal of Count
Nine, addressed in Section C of the December 18, 2018
Opinion. (Pl.'s Br. at 3-4.) In Count Nine, Plaintiff
brought a New Jersey Law Against Discrimination
(“NJLAD”) claim against Defendant City of
Wildwood as applied to Paragraphs 61-65 of the Complaint,
wherein Plaintiff alleged: on June 10, 2016, Plaintiff
appeared in Wildwood City Municipal Court to answer charges
for a traffic violation; that she requested of the Municipal
Court Judge a translator from English to Russian; that
Plaintiff was not provided a translator from English to
Russian; that other similarly situated persons are granted a
request for a translator in the Wildwood City Municipal
Court; and that Plaintiff was treated differently from other
similarly situated persons based on national origin based
animus. (Compl. at ¶¶ 61-65, 82.)
During the December 4, 2018 oral argument, the following
exchange took place between Judge Simandle and Mr. Peter M.
Kober, Esq., counsel for Plaintiff:
The Court: If my Opinion says nothing about
the denial of a Russian interpreter, is that acceptable to
both sides? I just don't see how it even relates here. .
. . If it's a traffic case, it has nothing to do with her
summons from her rental property. The only nexus is that it
happened in Wildwood. So do I need to get into it[, ] Mr.
Mr. Kober: Not as far as I'm concerned,
The Court: Okay, well I want to thank both
sides for helping me clarify the ...