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.

Caronte v. Chiumento

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

October 30, 2019

MICHAEL A. CARONTE, Plaintiff,
v.
LT. ALBERT CHIUMENTO #3522; LT. DAVID AMICO Defendants.

          By: Daniel B. Zonies, Esq., Counsel for Plaintiff Michael Caronte.

          REYNOLDS & HORN, P.C., By: Thomas B. Reynolds; John J. Bannan, Counsel for Defendants Lt. Albert Chiumento and Lt. David D'Amico.

          OPINION

          RENÉE MARIE BUMB, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         In an Opinion and Order dated March 2, 2018, the Court granted Defendants' summary judgment motion. [Dkt. No. 46] Plaintiff Michael Caronte filed no opposition to that motion. Plaintiff, apparently proceeding pro se[1], presently moves to reopen the case pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60. For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff seeks to reopen this case thirteen months after the Court's Opinion and Order on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment were issued. [Dkt. No. 50]. Plaintiff's one-page submission asserts that his former attorney, Daniel Zonies, committed malpractice when he “didn't even bother to tell [Plaintiff] that this case was dismissed.” [Id.] Defendants oppose the motion, arguing that it is untimely and that “Plaintiff has presented no evidence to support a finding that the Court's decision [on the merits of the summary judgment motion] was erroneous.” [Dkt. No. 52].

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         Rule 60(b) permits a party to seek relief from a final judgment for the following limited reasons:

(1) Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) Newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) Fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) The judgment is void;
(5) The judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it ...

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.