Opinion
Civil Action 18-963 (SDW)(LDW)
07-31-2023
PAUL ARGEN and SURENDER MALHAN, Plaintiffs, v. DAVID KATZ, Defendant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
WHEREAS OPINION
SUSAN D. WIGENTON, U.S.D.J.
THIS MATTER having come before this Court upon Plaintiff Paul Argen's (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Reconsideration, (D.E. 130), filed in connection with this Court's June 5, 2023 Opinion and Order denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, (D.E. 128; D.E. 129);
WHEREAS a party moving for reconsideration of an order of this Court must file its motion within fourteen (14) days after the entry of that order and set “forth concisely the matter or controlling decisions which the party believes the . . . Judge has overlooked.” L. Civ. R. 7.1(i). Motions for reconsideration are “extremely limited procedural vehicle(s)” that are to be granted “very sparingly.” Clark v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 940 F.Supp.2d 186, 189 (D.N.J. 2013) (quotation marks omitted). A motion for reconsideration may only be granted if the moving party shows “(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court [reached its original decision]; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.” Blystone v. Horn, 664 F.3d 397, 415 (3d Cir. 2011) (quotation marks and italics omitted). Such a motion is “not a vehicle for a litigant to raise new arguments.” CPS MedManagement LLC v. Bergen Reg'l Med. Ctr., L.P., 940 F.Supp.2d 141, 168 (D.N.J. 2013); and
WHEREAS Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration fails to identify any intervening change in the relevant law, new evidence that was unavailable at the time this Court entered its Opinion and Order, or an error of fact or law that, if left uncorrected, would result in manifest injustice; therefore, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED. An appropriate order follows.